Sitting of 30 June 1959

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LEE VALLEY WATER BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday.
  SOUTH WALES TRANSPORT BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Clean Air Act
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is satisfied with the administration of the Clean Air Act and with the results obtained; what further action it is intended to take; and by what date it is expected that the air in this country will compare with the best in other industrial countries and cities.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): An encouraging start has been made. But I should like to see faster progress in the worst polluted parts of England and Wales, and that is why I have asked the local authorities concerned to let me know their plans for speeding up the creation of smoke control areas. How soon we shall make the air in this country as clean as the best in other industrial countries I cannot say, but I intend to press on.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great disappointment and frustration among all sections of the community within a 50-mile radius of Manchester, and that feeling is such that the Lancashire Federation of Trades Councils is considering inviting authorities from Pittsburgh? If that invitation is made, will the Minister co-operate?
    Mr. Brooke: I did not hear every word of the hon. Member's supplementary question, but if he was asking me whether I will use any powers or influence I can to get the air cleaner, whether around Manchester or elsewhere, the answer is "Yes".
    Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that no permanent solution to pollution of the atmosphere is possible until energetic steps are taken to deal with the emission of noxious and asphyxiating fumes from diesel oil road vehicles? Will he impress on his right hon. Friend the Minister of Works the urgent need for intensive research by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research towards that aspect of the problem?
    Mr. Brooke: That is a matter which I hope to discuss with the Clean Air Council before long.
    Mr. Nabarro: I am very much obliged.

    Alkali, Etc., Works (Report)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he has considered the 95th Annual Report on Alkali, etc., Works by the Chief Inspectors; what general action is to be taken; and, in particular, what action is to be taken in respect of pages 36, 37 and 38 of the Report, with special reference to the 80 kilns and the hard core referred to on page 37.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I have, of course, studied this excellent document. With my approval and support, my Chief Alkali Inspector is proceeding in England and Wales on the lines indicated in the Report, including that part of it relating to ceramic works.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friends

    217
    and I very much appreciate the great improvements which have been brought about in the City of Stoke-on-Trent, but that we still suffer from the serious effects of the inaction of the minority? Will he undertake to use his maximum influence to bring about a higher standard among those people?
    Mr. Brooke: Yes, Sir. As I said, I want to help in every way I can. When I received my Chief Inspector's Report, I asked him to come to see me, and I discussed it with him. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the progress being made.
    Mrs. Slater: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would help in authorities like mine, Stoke-on-Trent, if he would give the address of the alkali inspector resident in the area, so that when we got a case we could immediately contact him instead of going the long way round and seeing the Minister, as in the case which I have recently sent to the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Brooke: I am not sure that it would be wise to short-circuit local authorities who are partners with my Alkali Inspectorate in this matter, but I will certainly take note of what the hon. Lady has said.

    Atmospheric Pollution, Stoke-on-Trent
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what recent action has been taken about the emission of fluorine compounds into the air in the City of Stoke-on-Trent; what are the future prospects; and what consultations he has had with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about its experience at the Fenton Farm.
    Mr. H. Brooke: Investigation is continuing and is being extended to include an analysis of the fluorine content of various raw materials used in pottery manufacture, in order to assess their individual contributions to the problem. My right hon. Friend keeps me informed of the progress of the experiments at Fenton Manor Farm.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, while we greatly appreciate what has been done,
    218
    it is now twenty years since I first raised this matter and that in the meantime people and cattle in the area have continued to suffer? Has not the time arrived when a sense of urgency should be introduced?
    Mr. Brooke: At present, there is no evidence of any hazard to public health. There is evidence of harm to cattle and that is what we are investigating. The Alkali Inspectorate and the Chief Inspector of Factories are co-operating in an investigation of these emissions. They are important, but to my mind they are not the most serious element of pollution in the area of Stoke-on-Trent.

    Buildings (Framework)
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what official restrictions are placed on the use of slotted angles made of steel or aluminium alloy for the framework of buildings in this country.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I am not aware of any restrictions on the use of these slotted angles. A building in which they were used would have to comply with any requirements of the building byelaws.
    Mr. Russell: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is the point I was making? Are there any building byelaws which will make it difficult to use this method of construction? If so, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that British firms export this type of framework for their building abroad, and that any out of date restrictions should be abolished?
    Mr. Bevins: If these angles are used in the construction of houses, those houses will be subject to the byelaws. I am not aware that there are any restrictions against the use of these angles.

    Control of Advertisements
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he proposes to make the further regulations, under the Town and Country Planning Act, for the control of advertisements, drafts of which he circulated on 25th February last.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I am at present considering certain observations which I have received from the bodies I consulted.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Would the Minister care to tell us when he thinks he will have completed these consultations, and whether he will let us have the regulations before the Summer Recess? He will no doubt be aware that there is some concern among various bodies, such as the C.P.R.E., at the rather long delay that has taken place.
    Mr. Brooke: I did not get in all the replies by the date I asked. Although the draft regulations are almost universally agreed in principle, there are specific detailed points which I have been asked to consider further. I would not like to give a promise about laying the new regulations before the Summer Recess, but I am anxious to get on.
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, whether he has now considered the proposals of the advertising interests for a voluntary code of standards applicable to outdoor advertising on business premises; and what action he proposes to take in this matter.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I understand that representatives of the advertising interests are meeting representatives of the local authority associations within the next two or three weeks to discuss a draft of a voluntary code of standards. I hope they will quickly reach agreement. In that event I shall do all I can to encourage adoption of the code.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the Minister say what he intends to do if agreement is not reached quickly? What sort of time limit has he in mind? Can he also state what further action it will be possible for him to take, if necessary?
    Mr. Brooke: That is a hypothetical question. This meeting is being held in the middle of next month, and I have expressed my strong hope that agreement will be reached.
    Mr. Woodburn: Can the Minister state whether there will be any advisers on art or on the countryside to advise this body,
    220
    or will it be merely a utilitarian conference? Will it be a conference which all those who are interested in the countryside can attend?
    Mr. Brooke: In this case the matter under discussion is purely concerned with the clutter of advertisements on business premises. We had better read the code first and then reach our decisions upon it.
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what steps he will take to restrict the display of electrical advertisement signs, particularly those with vivid red, amber and green colours, in view of the danger that they may be confused, by motorists, with traffic signals.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I see no need to strengthen the powers already available to local planning authorities under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations, 1948, for restricting the display of advertisement signs likely to be confused with traffic signals.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: If organisations representing road users wish to make representations, will the right hon. Gentleman either receive them himself or make arrangements for one of his right hon. Friends to do so?
    Mr. Brooke: If anyone feels that this is not working well, I should be glad if he would first send in his views, and then we can consider whether a deputation would be helpful.

    Stag Brewery Site, Victoria (Development)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (1) to what extent the plans for the development of the site of the Stag Brewery, Victoria, contain provision for the parking of cars; and how many car spaces will be made available;
    (2) to what extent the plans for the development of the Stag Brewery site, Victoria, will allow for a new street from Victoria Street, to Buckingham Palace Road.
    Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend has under consideration certain proposals for

    221
    the redevelopment of this site, which have been referred to him as they constitute a departure from the County of London Development Plan. These proposals include provision for 359 car spaces in addition to lock-up garages, and for a new street from Victoria Street to Warwick Row. My right hon. Friend can express no opinion on the merits of the proposals at present.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that this very fine project for a new street in the centre of London, and for over 350 car spaces and underground car parks, will receive the widest approval and appreciation if it proves acceptable?

    Planning Appeal Applications
    Mr. Loveysasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs the number of planning appeal applications received by his Department during the last twelve months; how these figures compare with the previous twelve months; and the approximate time that is taken to deal with these appeals.
    Mr. Bevins: Seven thousand, seven hundred and sixty-eight appeals were received during the twelve months ended 31st May last, and 7,329 during the previous twelve months. The average time taken to determine an appeal is now about six months.
    Mr. Loveys: I thank my hon. Friend for those figures, but I would point out that a delay of six months causes considerable hardship when it means that during the summer months no building can take place? Is my hon. Friend confident that everything is being done to speed up these appeals, including the full use of the Minister's powers, under the Act, to deal with minor cases by correspondence?
    Mr. Bevins: Yes. In fact, the number of these appeals has doubled in the last six years, but my right hon. Friend is trying to reduce the delay in a variety of ways, such as, where the parties agree, dealing with cases on the basis of written representations, by increasing the number of inspectors and by putting out more information about the general planning policy of Her Majesty's Government. We are doing all we can.

    Shopkeeper, Barking (Eviction)
    Mr. Braineasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether, in view of a recent case in Barking where an elderly widow was evicted from her shop by the local authority without compensation, he will take further steps to draw the attention of local authorities to paragraph 6 of Circular 43 issued by his Department in 1956.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I am proposing to send a further circular to local authorities very shortly.
    Mr. Braine: I thank my right hon. Friend for that most helpful Answer, but in view of the shocking circumstances of this case, would not his proposed action be more effective and pointed if his Circular made it clear that the vast majority of local authorities are humane in the exercise of their discretionary powers?
    Mr. Brooke: I think that my hon. Friend will be well satisfied with the Circular when he sees it.

    Green Belt Areas (Brierley Hill)
    Mr. Simmonsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will use his powers to prevent any further encroachment on land zoned as green belt areas in the area of the Brierley Hill Urban District Council.
    Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend attaches great importance to the preservation of green belts, but he must consider on their merits any proposals that may come before him to build in such areas.
    Mr. Simmons: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since the Conservatives have controlled the Staffordshire County Council speculative builders have been getting away with murder? Has his attention been drawn to the report in the Wolverhampton Express and Star of 13th June, of a meeting of the Brierley Hill Urban District Council, at which it was said that the "pressure boys" were at work on the county, and the county authority was succumbing to pressure put upon it by the landed interests? Will he look at that report if I send it to him?
    Mr. Bevins: I have not seen a copy of the report, but I can assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend has the interest of preserving green belts very much at heart. It would be wrong for me to comment upon these proposals at the moment.
    Mr. Mitchison: Can the hon. Gentleman state what considerations are borne in mind when deciding between the preservation of a green belt and the claim of a local builder to build on it?
    Mr. Bevins: The main consideration is the public interest. If an area has been formally declared a green belt, or it is known that the local planning authority wishes it to be a green belt, it is usually respected. But exceptions are sometimes made for building in the public interest.

    Detergents
    Mrs. Slaterasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will make a further statement on the problem of the foaming agent in detergents and its effect on sewage purification.
    Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend has, as yet, no information beyond that published in April in the Second Progress Report of the Standing Technical Committee on Synthetic Detergents. He hopes, however, to be able to make a statement before the summer Recess on the progress of the trials being carried out by the Committee.
    Mrs. Slater: I am very pleased to hear that we are likely to have a statement before the Recess. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether he has any knowledge of how far a new chemical has been developed which will dissolve the worst qualities of the foaming agent and make it less of a danger to sewerage authorities and to the people who use detergents? Has the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister seen the picture in Reynolds News on Sunday of the effects of detergent foam being blown about in Castle-town?
    Mr. Bevins: I am afraid I have not time to read all these newspapers. I think it much more enlightening to read the Second Progress Report of the Committee which makes clear that a new detergent material has been discovered by the manufacturers and that it has been subjected to tests by the Water Pollution
    224
    Research Laboratory of the D.S.I.R. In the main those tests have been successful, and we are trying to ascertain whether such tests could be carried out at major sewerage works. We shall know more when we have the results of these inquiries.

    National Water Grid
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what consideration he has given to the case for a national water grid involving the Grand Contour Canal Project, submitted to him by Mr. J. F. Pownall, of Cardiff; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. H. Brooke: This project, as I understand it, would involve construction of a canal system based on London and extending to Bristol in the West and via Manchester to Newcastle-upon-Tyne in the North, with branches to other large cities. It appears that the total length of canal would be some 1,300 miles, and it would require some 26,000 acres of land. Apart from technical difficulties, the value for water supply purposes would be small in relation to the cost in land and money, which would be prohibitive.

  HOUSING

    Workers (Accommodation)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what special action he is proposing to take to help local authorities in districts where there are many vacancies for men and women and where there is no housing accommodation available.
    Mr. H. Brooke: It is for local authorities to assess the needs of their districts when considering their housing programmes. I am always ready to look sympathetically at any case where the authority thinks that it ought to build additional houses in order to meet a special and urgent housing need.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that a report made recently showed that about a thousand vacancies were available for men and women in a place not very far from here, but that it also said that there was not the slightest chance of their being filled because of the acute

    225
    housing shortage? How can the Minister try to impress the House that he is dealing with the housing situation if such a state of affairs can exist in this place?
    Mr. Brooke: Perhaps the hon. Member will let me have further information. The present situation is that I have told nearly every local authority in England and Wales that it can have the full programme it has asked for. If more houses are needed the initiative lies with the local authorities to ask for them.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Did the Minister notice that in asking his supplementary question my hon. Friend referred to a place not far from here? Does not that illustrate the fact that industry is concentrated in these conurbations, where there is lack of housing accommodation, whereas in other parts of the country families are moving out, leaving accommodation empty?
    Mr. Brooke: I realise what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, but he will know what the Government are doing in West South Wales—and doing successfully—to attract industry to these areas.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

    Constitution
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action is proposed, before the holding of the conference to review the Federal Constitution in 1960, to secure that the Governments of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia more fully represent the peoples of those territories.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I do not contemplate before 1960 any change in the Constitution of Northern Rhodesia introduced at the beginning of this year. I am still considering the possibility of changes in the Nyasaland Constitution, and am not yet able to make a statement.
    Mr. Brockway: Since neither of these Legislatures represents the majority of the people, and their fate will be decided for many years by this conference, is not it desirable that steps should be taken before 1960 to see that the democratic right of the people is reflected when their destiny is being determined?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: These are valuable bodies, but I am not suggesting that, by themselves, and in their present form, they would provide an adequate method of ascertaining the views of the people of the Territories.
    Mr. Wall: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the Government of Northern Rhodesia is more representative than ever before but that a similar advance was prevented in Nyasaland because of the widespread revolt against law and order?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir.

  NYASALAND

    Banned Publication
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which publications of the All African Peoples' Conference in Ghana have been banned in Nyasaland; and for what reasons.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The "All-African People's Conference News Bulletin" has been banned as its importation was considered to be against the public interest.
    Mr. Brockway: Is not this really rather silly? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Does not the Conference at Accra represent a great democratic African movement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—of the whole continent? Is it not like the attitude of King Canute to try to prevent these things arising and being reflected among the people?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will not follow up the rather inadequate reference by the hon. Gentleman to the rôle of King Canute. The effect of this document on people who hitherto have not been subjected in a great degree to the extravagance of political writings may well be serious to public order.

    Devlin Commission (Report)
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he now expects the report of the Devlin Commission to be published.
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has yet received the Report of the Devlin Commission of Inquiry into the recent disturbances in Nyasaland.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have not yet received the Report. I hope to receive it about the middle of July and it will be published as soon as possible thereafter.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that when the Report of the Commission is published Dr. Hastings Banda and the other detainees will either have charges brought against them or be released?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall certainly await the publication of the Report before making any statement about what I shall do after its publication.
    Mr. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Report will not be delayed so that it is too late to discuss it in this House before the Summer Recess?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is certainly not the practice of this Government.

    Direction of Labour
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies under what circumstances, in what places, and in what form compulsory public labour is being used in Nyasaland.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The emergency regulations provide for the direction of labour, where required, to remove obstructions on public roads. The power has been very sparingly used, and then only in widely separated areas for very short periods on specific road blocks.
    Mr. Thomson: Is not this a degrading form of punishment in which the guilty and innocent are punished alike? Is not the damage which will be done to world opinion greater than the immediate temporary advantage to the authorities in Nyasaland?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir.

    Unlawful Organisation
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Africans have been found guilty of being members of an unlawful organisation since the beginning of the state of emergency; and if he will state the maximum sentence imposed for this offence.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I understand that the hon. Member has Nyasaland in mind. The figure is 127 up to 19th June, the maximum sentence being two and a half years' imprisonment.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the Secretary of State aware that this organisation, which is now illegal, until recently had the blessing of the Governor in Nyasaland, and, in the long run, will once again come to be recognised by the Governor in Nyasaland? Would he not agree that it might be much better, and would not embitter relations nearly so much, and would encourage a sane and sensible solution, if this policy of repression were stopped before publication of the Devlin Commission's Report?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to my Answer.

  ST. HELENA

    Houses
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are now being taken to clear slums and build new houses in St. Helena.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is planned to clear the two remaining blocks of slums in Jamestown and to build further Government cottages including some for rent purchase. Further subsidies for building will also be made.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that according to the last census a very high percentage of houses in St. Helena are substandard? Is he aware that suitable houses could be built at comparatively low cost? Will he authorise a really imaginative and large-scale slum clearance scheme?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Gentleman studies my Answer, he will see that I am aware of most of this trouble. Within their resources the Government of St. Helena are getting on with it with vigour.

    Fisher's Valley Irrigation Scheme
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the present position with regard to the Fisher's Valley Irrigation Scheme in St. Helena.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The plan to construct a dam has been abandoned for the

    229
    time being owing to the discovery of underground springs at the proposed site. An alternative scheme for supplying water to Longwood plains by gravity from a point higher up the valley is now under consideration. Meanwhile swamp land below the dam site has been drained and cleared and an open channel has been provided to enable it to be irrigated all the year round.

    Teachers
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to provide trained teachers in St. Helena.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is a difficult problem to which the Governor has been giving much attention. It would be hard to cover the ground adequately in reply to a Question and I propose to write to the hon. Member. Perhaps he may wish to put down a further Question after receiving my letter.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider two possibilities: first, the paying of higher salaries to the trained St. Helenian teachers already there, in order to keep them on the island, and secondly, a scheme with one of the larger education authorities in this country so that some of our teachers could go to St. Helena for a short time?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the fact that previous dictators have been exiled to St. Helena, could not the right hon. Gentleman be persuaded to go there to look after the dam mentioned in answer to Question No. 24 personally?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that perhaps I should be more profitably engaged here.

  KENYA

    State of Emergency
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now announce the ending of the state of emergency in Kenya, in view of the improved political situation in the colony.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to the reply of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member on 2nd June.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Minister aware that the continuance of the state of emergency in Kenya is impeding peaceful political progress and that the emergency powers are being used not to suppress Mau Mau and K.K.M. but to interfere with the legitimate political activities of Mr. Tom M'Boya, and Mr. Mathenge, who has been rearrested?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot add anything to the Answer I have given. I shall be glad when the security situation allows these powers to be withdrawn.

    Rawson Mbogwa Macharia
    Mr. Haleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total cost to Government funds in this country and in Kenya, respectively, of payments in money and grants of educational benefit, travelling and other allowances made to Rawson Mbogwa Macharia since July, 1952; when were these applications for benefit first made; and what were the dates of payment.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Kenya Government paid to Macharia and his dependants a total sum of £426 in Kenya and £1,644 in the United Kingdom. Macharia first asked whether the Government would give him protection on 6th November, 1952.
    As regards the third part of the Question, in view of the length of the information requested, I will, with permission, write to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Hale: In view of the fact that it is extremely important that we should know whether these payments were promised before or after the trial at which Macharia gave evidence, could not the Colonial Secretary at least give us that information? If it was before the trial, were the facts communicated to the solicitors who were advising the defence?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that the hon. Gentleman has read the case very carefully himself, and I think he knows that in fact the statement was made by Macharia unaided, as the judge noted in his findings at the end of the trial. In an interview on that day—6th November—with the then public prosecutor, Mr. Somerhough, after going over the statement of 6th October, Macharia asked whether the Kenya Government could

    231
    give him protection should he give evidence against Kenyatta, and the deputy prosecutor said he would raise the question with the authorities concerned.
    Mr. Haleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what date the evidence given by Rawson Mbogwa Macharia at the trial of Jomo Kenyatta was first supplied to the prosecution.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A statement written and signed by Macharia, and dated 6th October, 1952, which was substantially the same as the evidence which he gave at the trial of Jomo Kenyatta, was first seen by the then deputy public prosecutor on 5th November, 1952.
    Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that so long as he goes on using the word "protected" and talks about the promise of protection given on 6th November, before the trial, without saying what arrangements were made for the payment of something like £2,000 of benefit to this witness who testified at the trial, the whole question of the trial comes under acute suspicion, because this man was the one really important witness.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a very complicated matter. I am very ready to discuss it at length, and if he cares to raise it on the Motion for the Adjournment, I will deal with it in the full detail which it deserves.

    Round-Table Conference
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now make a statement on the form and nature of the expert advice which is to be made available to the forthcoming Kenya round-table conference; and to what extent he has consulted African opinion in Kenya on this aspect of the matter.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am still considering this question and have no statement to make at present. Since my discussions with the delegation led by Mr. Odinga in April, Mr. Blundell has given me an account of the preliminary views of his group on this question, including, of course, its African members.
    Mr. Robinson: Would the Colonial Secretary agree that it is very desirable that such experts as he does select to advise the Conference shall have the confidence of the African representatives, as well as that of other racial groups?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that is very important, and, indeed, essential for all the experts, whatever may be the final conclusion.

    Hola Camp (Disciplinary Inquiry)
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has yet received the report of the tribunal considering the disciplinary charges against Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Coutts; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the disciplinary committee, which has been inquiring into the actions of the Hola Camp commandant and his deputy, is yet in a position to issue a report.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir.
    Mr. Robinson: Is not the Colonial Secretary aware that it is more than six weeks since these disciplinary charges were instituted; and, in view of the fact that the Attorney-General told the House that all the facts were known in this matter, why the delay? Is he now trying to delay publication of the report until the Recess?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I repeat what I said. This is the sort of malicious innuendo that I deeply resent. Nothing of the sort is intended, but the disciplinary inquiry is concerned with the position of two servants of the Crown in Kenya, and it is essential that the charges against them should be properly gone into, and not skimped or hurried in order to meet some need of the hon. Gentleman. The disciplinary inquiry has already been completed and the tribunal is now preparing its report and recommendations. It will then have to be considered by the Governor, his Ministers and by me. I shall arrange for the report and proceedings to be published as a Command Paper. I hope this can be done some time next month, well before the House rises.

    Detainees, Manyani (Inquiry)
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action it is proposed to take against named officers of the Special Branch in Kenya who were found to have committed acts of brutality towards detainees at Manyani, according to the report of the administrative inquiry conducted by Mr. A. P. Jack, Deputy Public Prosecutor.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: These allegations were made by one of the 94 witnesses interrogated by Mr. Jack while investigating 19 allegations by Mr. V. C. Shuter into conditions at Manyani, not a single one of which was established. They were made by one, uncorroborated witness and the Special Branch officers concerned, both of whom had left the service some time ago, were traced after the publication of Mr. Jack's report and denied them. Attempts to identify detainees who might have been concerned in the alleged events failed. In view of the lack of corroboration and conflict of evidence, legal proceedings have not been initiated.
    Mr. Robinson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that among the evidences of brutality were two authenticated instances, accepted by Mr. Jack, where detainees had been beaten with a rubber hose on the genitals by ex-officers of the Special Branch. Does he really say, in view of the fact that this evidence was accepted by Mr. Jack, that no action is to be taken?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the Answer which I have given. In fairness to the Government of Kenya, the hon. Gentleman ought to reflect that of 94 witnesses interrogated on 19 allegations, not a single one of the allegations made by Mr. Shuter was substantiated.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA

    Mr. Kenneth Kaunda (Charges)
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what charges have been brought against Mr. Kenneth Kaunda in Northern Rhodesia; and with what evidence.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The charges were:

    (1) convening an unauthorised meeting contrary to Section 30 of the Police Ordinance;

    234

    (2) conspiracy to effect an unlawful purpose contrary to Section 358 of the Penal Code;

    As regards the evidence, I have asked the Governor to forward the case record and copies will be placed in the Library of the House as soon as possible.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that Answer. May I ask whether he is aware that Mr. Kaunda made a statement before the election in Northern Rhodesia appealing against violence, and that he has done his best to smooth down the antagonisms which have existed in the Territory? Is he aware that, in view of this, these sentences will sound very harsh and oppressive?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is not always by words that people ought to be judged. I ask the hon. Gentleman to await the case record.

    Information Services (Appropriations)
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the appropriations for the Information Services in Northern Rhodesia have been cut; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The revised provision of £87,016 in 1958–59 compared with £122,840 in 1957–58 is accounted for mainly by the transfer of responsibility for broadcasting in Northern Rhodesia to an independent Corporation.
    Mr. Wall: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, in spite of the transfer of broadcasting, the appropriations still represent a cut in the Information Services? In view of the present situation in Central Africa, should we not be spending more on our Information Services rather than less?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We work according to a budget. The Government do as well as they can—I think very well—on the money available.

  COLONIAL TERRITORIES

    State of Emergency (Declarations)
    Mr. Haleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in how many Colonial Territories a state of emergency

    235
    has been declared since October, 1951; and in how many political leaders have been imprisoned, detained or interned.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In thirteen territories or parts of territories, a number of them being due to inter-tribal troubles and many of them concerned with relatively minor disturbances.
    No person is imprisoned save after conviction by the ordinary process of the criminal law for a criminal offence. Moreover, in no case has action been taken against a person for legitimate political activity. Powers of detention have only been used where it has been necessary, by reason of the other activities of the persons concerned, to exercise control over them for the purpose of securing or maintaining public order.
    Mr. Hale: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that this is the second successive Question which he has failed to answer? He is not asked about the normal processes of criminal law, but about people being detained without trial. Has not this happened under his rule in Colony after Colony, and is it not causing concern, both in our international relations and in the Commission on Human Rights, which body the right hon. Gentleman promised that the Declaration of Human Rights would be applied to the Colonies?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir; that is indeed not true. With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, I was asked to specify how many times people had been arrested or detained because of their political views. I have explained in my Answer that it is impossible to distinguish that, because they have not been detained for their political views, but for other reasons. In regard to the number of disturbances, I ask the hon. Gentleman to address himself to the very large number of states of emergency under previous Administrations, which shows that this problem is common to all Governments in the United Kingdom.

  WEST INDIES

    Citrus Industry
    Mr. Braineasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what official representations have been made to him by the
    236
    Federation of the West Indies concerning the effects of dollar liberalisation proposals upon the West Indian citrus industry, which was developed as a result of undertakings given by this country; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he is taking to safeguard the position of the West Indies citrus industry, in view of the policy of Her Majesty's Government to liberalise trade with the dollar area.
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what plans he has been preparing to offset the effects on the citrus industry of the West Indies of the dollar trade liberalisation policy.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A West Indian delegation led by the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation is at present discussing the question of safeguards to the citrus industry. The delegation have drawn attention to the risks to which their market in this country would be open in the event of complete dollar liberalisation. The position regarding liberalisation is, broadly, that quantitative restrictions on imports can only be imposed so long as they are justified on balance of payments grounds. As the discussions are still continuing, I am sure the House would not expect me to make any further statement about the probable outcome at this stage. But I can say this. Her Majesty's Government fully recognise the importance of the citrus industry to the West Indies and are in the present Conference discussing means of helping the West Indian Governments to build it up so that it can meet fair competition from any quarter.
    Mr. Braine: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, which, of course, one recognises has been given in the middle of the negotiations, may I ask if he would urge upon his colleagues in the Government that the minimum requirement to save this industry is to maintain the quantitative restriction on dollar imports for sufficiently long to enable the industry to make adjustments in its arrangements over a period of years?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is one of the matters that is being considered by the

    237
    Conference, and I feel that it would not be appropriate for me to give an answer now.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Colonial Secretary bear in mind that in recent years some degree of progress towards viability has been made in the West Indies by long-term contracts and secure markets; and, in view of the fact that the islands have now embarked upon this great venture of federation, will he realise how very important it is that we should give them every assistance to maintain their basic industry?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I certainly agree.
    Mr. Henderson: Does the Answer of the Secretary of State mean that in these negotiations Her Majesty's Government intend to make proposals with the object of safeguarding the economy of the West Indian Federation from the competition of economically more developed countries?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must not read into my Answer more than I intended. I fully recognise the importance of the industry, and the historic ties of that industry with the United Kingdom. One of our tasks is to reconcile the economic interests of the West Indies with our international obligations. I am hopeful that that can be done, but I am sure that it would be premature to go beyond the Answer I have given.
    Mr. Fisher: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that unrestricted United States competition in the United Kingdom would be completely disastrous for the West Indian citrus industry? Will he confirm, if possible, the undertaking given to the West Indian Ministers by the present Lord Chandos when he was Secretary of State?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir, I certainly will; and also the undertaking I have given myself.

  CYPRUS

    Book (Confiscation)
    Mr. Delargyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies by what authority the Governor of Cyprus has confiscated 5,000 copies of a book published in Greece, the title of which has been sent to him.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: By the authority of Section 58A of the Cyprus Criminal Code Law.
    Mr. Delargy: Does not the Colonial Secretary realise that the withholding of this book, which is about the experiences of a man detained for eighteen months without trial and without charge in a camp in Cyprus, is most unjust? Is it not also a very silly decision, because sooner or later the book will be published, and it is now getting an exceedingly good advertisement and will have a much wider circulation than it normally would have had?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. I fully support the action of the Governor in this matter. The Governor's liberal approach to the problems of Cyprus is well-known. The circulation of this book in Cyprus would certainly stir up feelings entirely contrary to the spirit of constructive co-operation which flowed from the London Conference.

  UGANDA

    Incident, Katwe
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he intends to set up a court of inquiry into the incident that took place recently in Uganda when police opened fire on a crowd of persons watching a wrestling match.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I assume that the right hon. Member refers to the riot which took place at Katwe on 4th June, on which I gave a full report in my reply to the hon. Members for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) and Flint, East (Mrs. E. White) on 11th June. In the light of this report I do not consider that a court of inquiry into the incident is necessary or desirable.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is not the Colonial Secretary aware that my information, obtained from eye witnesses and from my own visit to the place shortly after the shooting, differs in many respects from his? Is he also aware, in particular, that the crowd was not engaged in any political activity but was watching a wrestling match and dancing, and that ail it did was to break a regulation that there should not be more than 250 people together? Finally, is he aware that the

    239
    police opened fire without reading the Riot Act? Does he think that this is desirable, and that if such things happened in this country there would not be an inquiry? Why should there not be an inquiry if they happen in Uganda?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I made a long statement on this matter in reply to a Question and I have nothing to add to that statement. I cannot accept the value of the sources from which the right hon. Gentleman claims to have his information. I have proof that those for whom he claims to speak repudiate his right to speak on their behalf. The best comment upon his journey is an article in the Uganda Argus which described him as "an innocent abroad".
    Mr. Creech Jones: Was there not once in the Colonial Office a very healthy practice that when serious events of this kind occurred involving loss of life an independent inquiry was held? Has the Colonial Secretary abandoned that practice altogether?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, but if the right hon. Gentleman were still occupying my post he would get his facts correct. No one was killed on this occasion.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is it not possible for the Colonial Secretary, instead of trying to score runs, to tell the House a little more fully what is happening? Is it not the case, if people are fired on in a crowd for whatever reason, that that ought to be a most unusual occurrence in a Colonial Territory? Are the men against whom the firing was directed being charged with riotous assembly or some charge of that sort? In other words, how are these facts to become known before the Colonial Secretary condemns my right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of the nineteen persons charged in connection with the riot at Katwe eleven have appeared before the magistrates, three have been released for lack of evidence, four have been remanded, six are awaiting a court hearing, and two are still in hospital.
    Mr. Callaghan: In view of the fact that no one has yet been found guilty of the charges brought against him, does the Colonial Secretary think he is justified in the strictures which he has applied to my right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Dugdale: Although the Colonial Secretary is perfectly correct in saying that on one was killed, is he aware that I have seen a woman with shrapnel wounds in her breast as the result of the shooting by the police. Will he take this matter a little more seriously?
    Mr. P. Williams: On a point of order. In view of the fact that the earlier reply of my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary showed that the whole matter is sub judice, are we not stretching the bounds of order in pursuing the matter in this House at all, and are not the imputations being cast by hon. Members opposite wholly unjustified by the facts of the situation?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not know about the facts, but it did appear, from the Colonial Secretary's last answer—if I understood him aright—that some of these people are on remand, which means that the court is still to consider their cases. Presumably that would put these cases sub judice.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Was not my right hon. Friend's original Question to ask the Colonial Secretary to hold an inquiry? Is it not a fact that such inquiries used to be held in the past?
    Mr. S. Silverman: Further to the same point of order. If it be a fact that all these matters are sub judice, so that the question of whether anyone was pursuing unlawful conduct at the time when the shooting took place is still before the courts and not decided, was it not most improper of the Colonial Secretary to make a retort to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) which implied that his statement of their innocence of any offence only showed that he was an innocent abroad?
    Mr. Speaker: The purpose of the rule relating to criminal matters which are sub judice is that this House should be scrupulously careful not to prejudice the trial of persons who may be accused by making statements about them. That is the general rule—
    Mr. Silverman—
    Hon. Members: Order.
    Mr. Speaker: The House has generally shown a certain reticence about such matters if they are even connected with a criminal prosecution.
    Mr. Silverman: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. That was exactly the point which I was putting to you and on which I would like your Ruling. Was not the statement to which I referred, made by the Colonial Secretary, highly prejudicial and embarrassing to the defence in any proceedings which are now going on?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not know enough about these things to express a view on them. It seems to me to have been a remark directed more against the right hon. Member for West Bromwich than against any of the persons involved in the riot.
    Mr. Dugdale: In view of the most unsatisfactory statement made by the Colonial Secretary, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    EURATOM
    Mr. Masonasked the Prime Minister how many meetings at Government level have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and Euratom since the Euratom-United Kingdom Treaty was signed; and to what extent there is co-operation between Her Majesty's Government and the Consortium to further develop exports to Europe of nuclear reactors, nuclear materials, instruments and knowledge of different reactor techniques.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): A Joint Working Group of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and the Euratom Commission has held its first meeting and has put in hand the practical task of developing fields of collaboration between the two organisations. There has not yet been any occasion since its establishment was announced in May for a meeting of the Continuing Committee for Co-operation.
    Close contact is maintained between Government Departments, the Atomic Energy Authority and industrial firms on the question of nuclear exports to Europe and other parts of the world.
    Mr. Mason: Does the Prime Minister think that is sufficient? Is he not aware that the consortium, to say the least, is finding it financially disturbing at the moment, that it has been promised only 14 nuclear reactors compared with the
    242
    previous promise of 19 and only managed to export one to Europe as compared with the United States which is going to export 6 to 8, an order worth £129 million? Why are the Government so complacent about Euratom? Is it not time that they stepped in and tried to help Euratom?
    The Prime Minister: In fact no orders for power stations have been placed under the American Euratom agreement and Euratom as an institution does not place orders. Those are placed as between the separate countries. I regard this as a very important collaboration, but the immediate task is practical measures of collaboration, which are being studied by the Joint Working Group of officials.
    Mr. Mason: Is there not provision in the agreement for the Government to step in on a higher level than this technical collaboration? How much help is there to be to the consortium in this respect?
    The Prime Minister: It is the general experience that meetings of Ministers are most fruitful after inquiry into the problems by officials on both sides.

    AFRICAN COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the increasing complexity of colonial affairs, he will now appoint a Minister of State solely responsible for the affairs of Colonies and Protectorates in Africa.
    The Prime Minister: I note the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. While the appointment of Ministers of State in different Departments has certainly helped to reduce the pressure, yet this device has not, in practice, affected the ultimate responsibility of the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Donnelly: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Hola debate disclosed a situation in which either the machinery did not exist for the Secretary of State to know what was happening, or the Secretary of State was culpably negligent? Is the Prime Minister saying that he is proposing to take no further action to see that a situation like that of Hola does not arise again?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept the two deductions made by the hon. Member, but I perfectly accept, as I think is well known to us all, that while assistant Ministers or Ministers of State can very much help and do much, we have not yet found a solution of the problem which remains, that ultimate responsibility must remain with the Secretary of State. That is still a very difficult problem with the amount of travelling and additional work put on Secretaries of State nowadays.
    Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that with the changing form of the Commonwealth today there is a case for reviewing the work of the Commonwealth Relations Office on the one side and the Colonial Office on the other, and considering in the long run the desirability of amalgamating the two, perhaps under the title "Commonwealth Office" with two or three Ministers of State operating in control of the oceanic regions assigned to them?
    The Prime Minister: That has been considered and no doubt we shall have to think of it again. I sometimes think that many of these suggestions tend to add to rather than to reduce the total responsibility lying on the Minister in charge.
    Mr. Callaghan: Whatever the merits of this suggestion, is not the real difficulty about the deterioration of relations in Africa today due to the policies followed by the Colonial Secretary?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I could not accept that either.

    CIVIL AVIATION
    Mr. Awberyasked the Prime Minister if he will, in view of the growing importance and extension of aviation throughout the world, consider the creation of a separate Ministry of Civil Aviation for the purpose of dealing exclusively with questions of civil aviation.
    The Prime Minister: The problem of the correct organisation of Government is of course a difficult one. But the best time for change is at the beginning of a Parliament and not towards its end.
    Mr. Awbery: Is not the Prime Minister aware that aviation has grown to such proportions and such importance that it has become necessary that there should be two departments instead of one? Would he give further consideration to this problem?
    The Prime Minister: I am quite aware of all that, but I still say I do not think this would be a particularly good moment to embark on such a change.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the sequence of events has placed the aircraft industry in a very difficult position? Would my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, when he comes back as Prime Minister after the General Election, perhaps something can be done for the industry?
    The Prime Minister: I recognise the problem. Like many others, we are trying to deal with it by committees of Ministers and by the Cabinet itself; but I fully realise that, just as we have sometimes made amalgamations of Ministries, conditions might change and it might be desirable to make further groupings. All that requires much study to which I have given a great deal of preliminary work.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Would the Prime Minister agree that civil aviation is a form of transport and therefore it is not unnatural that it should be part of the Ministry of Transport? There are constitutional and Parliamentary objections to the needless multiplication of Ministers. Therefore, would the right hon. Gentleman be careful—I am sure he will—about a needless multiplication of Ministers which would upset the balance of things in proceedings in this House?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with that, but what we have done in recent years has been rather in the opposite direction—an amalgamation of Ministries. There may be conditions where, owing to changing circumstances, a result which is produced is not altogether satisfactory and in that case, of course, it would need looking at again.

    PRESIDENT DE GAULLE
    Mr. Healeyasked the Prime Minister if he will publish the official communication he made to President de Gaulle on 22nd June.
    The Prime Minister: I made no official communication to President de Gaulle on 22nd June.
    Mr. Healey: Is the Prime Minister aware of the content of the message which was passed by the British Ambassador in France to General de Gaulle on 22nd June—and if not, why not?
    The Prime Minister: I have made no such communication. A message was sent, but it did not deal with any current political problems. It was a communication of a formal character.
    Mr. Healey: The Prime Minister has admitted that a communication did pass. That contradicts his earlier Answer. Will he tell us what was the nature of the communication?
    The Prime Minister: I said that no communication was made by me to President de Gaulle. I was asked in Question No 48 if I would publish the communication made by me to President de Gaulle. If the hon. Member referred to a communication which was made it was of the character of a formal kind which it is not customary to publish.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Why is the Prime Minister being so coy about this matter? Is he attempting to evade responsibility for the official communication made to General de Gaulle? Why should he not tell us what it contained?
    The Prime Minister: I should be perfectly ready, as the right hon. Member knows, to speak about it to him, but it would be contrary to precedent and practice to publish the terms of the communication at the present moment.
    Mr. Bevan: Did the communication originate with the Prime Minister or with the Ambassador?
    The Prime Minister: It was approved by the Government, but was of a character which it is not customary or according to precedent to publish.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Are we to understand that the Prime Minister's reticence is connected with the fact that he has not yet had a reply from the President? In that case we should understand it. May we have an assurance that when a reply has been received he will make a statement to the House?
    The Prime Minister: I shall make a statement as soon as, according to precedent, it is customary to do so.

    CHANCELLOR ADENAUER
    Mr. Healeyasked the Prime Minister what official communications he has received from Chancellor Adenauer regarding a possible meeting of Western Heads of Government.
    The Prime Minister: None, Sir.
    Mr. Healey: Could the Prime Minister assure the House that he will take the first opportunity of telling Chancellor Adenauer that the recent criticisms he has made of the British Prime Minister in the American Press must have been a calculated campaign to impair relations between the two countries? Will he take the Chancellor by the arm and tell him that "enough is enough"?

    THE VICTORIA CROSS
    Mr. Simmonsasked the Prime Minister if he will now reconsider the position of holders of the Victoria Cross who find themselves in needy circumstances by entirely disregarding war disability pensions in the determination of means.
    The Prime Minister: This is a matter which, as the House knows, has often been raised in the past; but I am quite prepared to look into it again.
    Mr. Simmons: Does the Prime Minister realise that the war disability pension is disregarded for Public Assistance and things of that kind? Will he see that Victoria Cross holders are not put in a worse position than the recipients of National Assistance? Will he look at the general position of holders of the Victoria Cross who are in impecunious circumstances?
    The Prime Minister: I have not had time to go into all the details, but I have seen some first statement of them. They are rather complicated, but I will do my best to look into the matter and to see if a solution can be found. I do not think the hon. Member would wish to press me on this matter at the moment.
    Mr. Turton: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that there is a great objection to these conditions and is he aware that considerable feeling in the country that it is distasteful to subject holders of the Victoria Cross annuity to a scrutiny as to means? Will he consider whether opportunity should not be taken for a more complete revision of this Pay Warrant?
    The Prime Minister: It is a little more complicated than that. Perhaps if the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) have a particular case in mind they will write to the National Assistance Board, or to me, and I shall do my best to look into the matter.

    NUCLEAR TESTS
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the delays due to the technical examination of the problem of nuclear test control, he will propose to President Eisenhower and Mr. Khrushchev that they should now issue a declaration that the three Governments do not intend to resume nuclear explosions pending the establishment of an effective system of control, including a limited number of unrestricted inspections.
    The Prime Minister: Our chief aim must be to reach a comprehensive agreement with an effective system of control. Meanwhile the Conference is continuing and no tests are taking place.
    Mr. Henderson: Could not the Prime Minister agree that the making of this declaration by the three Heads of Government would itself greatly facilitate the achievement of agreement on control and inspection of nuclear armaments at the Geneva Conference?
    The Prime Minister: I am not quite so sure about that. The Geneva Conference is going along slowly but steadily. Of course, there will come a point when there may be some vital decisions to be taken. I still believe that there is every chance of success. If there is, it is by far the biggest prize at which we can
    248
    aim, because it gives us not merely the cessation of tests, which is good, but for the first time a system of international control upon which all future disarmament must be based. I feel that that prize is worth waiting for and working for, because it is the biggest of all.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that precisely because many of us have hopes that there will be a three-Power agreement on tests we feel that there is much to be said for my right hon. and learned Friend's suggestion that the negotiations may still take a long time and that it is vitally important that meanwhile no further tests should be made? Will he bear in mind the desirability of the kind of declaration which my right hon. and learned Friend suggests?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly bear it in mind as one possible course if full agreement cannot be reached, but I am still hoping that full agreement can be reached.
    Mr. Gaitskell: With respect, the Prime Minister has misunderstood the point. The point is that, however long the negotiations may take, none of the three Powers would resume tests, pending the negotiations. Is there not a great deal to be said for that declaration?
    The Prime Minister: We have made that declaration, with the United States Government—that so long as the Conference was continuing we would not make tests. If we could make that larger, of course. It is simply a question of what is the best method of negotiation and I do not think that at this moment for me to make this proposal would be the best method of bringing the negotiations to a successful conclusion, but I do not rule that out as one of the methods which may be used in these discussions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NEW TOWNS BILL
  Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
  Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the new Clause (Transfer and compensation of certain officers) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Mitchison.—[Mr. Mitchison.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

  NEW TOWNS BILL

    New Clause.—(TRANSFER AND COMPEN- SATION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS.)
    (1) Any order under section six of this Act may contain provisions as to the transfer of existing officers affected by the order and shall contain provisions for the protection of the interests of such existing officers so affected (hereinafter called "designated officers") as the Minister may designate.
    (2) Provision shall be made by regulations made by the Treasury, for the payment by the Commission of compensation to or in respect of persons who are, or who but for any national service of theirs would be designated officers, and who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments which is attributable to the provisions of any order under section six of this Act.
    (3) Regulations under the foregoing subsection may include provision as to the manner in which and the person to whom any claim for compensation under this section is to be made and for the determination of all questions arising under the regulations
    (4) In this section—
    "existing officer" means an officer serving a development corporation on such date or dates as may be specified in an order relating to that development corporation;
    "national service" means any such service in any of Her Majesty's forces or other employment (whether or not in the service of Her Majesty) as may be prescribed by regulations under this section;
    "officer" includes the holder of any place, situation or employment.
    (5) Any regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—[Mr. MacColl.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    3.34 p.m.
    Mr. James MacColl: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    The Committee may be helped if I endeavour to clear up what may be a
    250
    certain amount of confusion. In the first place, hon. Members who were in the House 24 hours ago may think that we are resuming the very interesting debate which we then had on the subject of transfer and compensation for certain officers. However, I can assure the Committee that the atmosphere in which we shall discuss this matter and the standard of values which we now have are very different from those of 24 hours ago.
    Secondly, it may appear to someone who has looked cursorily at two Clauses with the same marginal heading that they are exactly the same. In fact, they are very different, and the operative words are those which appear in line 4 of this Clause:
    "as the Minister may designate".
    It may also help the Committee in coming to a conclusion on this extremely important matter if hon. Members know something about its history. It originally came before the Standing Committee by way of a new Clause moved by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and indentical with the second new Clause upon the Notice Paper—Transfer and compensation of officers—standing in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison):
    "(1) Any order under section six of this Act may contain provisions as to the transfer of existing officers affected by the order and shall contain provisions for the protection of the interests of any such existing officers.
    (2) Provision shall be made, by regulations made by the Treasury, for the payment by the Commission of compensation to or in respect of persons who are, or who but for any national service of theirs would be existing officers, and who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments which is attributable to the provisions of any such order as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section.
    (3) Regulations under the foregoing subsection may include provision as to the manner in which and the person to whom any claim for compensation under this section is to be made, and for the determination of all questions arising under the regulations.
    (4) In this section—
    "existing officer" means an officer serving a development corporation on such date or dates as may be specified in an order relating to that development corporation;
    "national service" means any such service in any of Her Majesty's forces or other employment (whether or not in the service of Her Majesty) as may be prescribed by regulations under this section;

    251
    "officer" includes the holder of any place, situation or employment.
    (5) Any regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
    That is to say, it provided generally for compensation for officers of the new town corporations who lost their jobs as a result of the change of control.
    That new Clause had a full debate over two days in Committee and towards the end of that debate the Minister said:
    "The Government's intention is to ask each of the development corporations to look ahead and to try to pinpoint cases in which they think any individual members of their staffs may possibly be left high and dry. There may be few of these cases, but there may be a small core of individual cases. We will do that. We will ask the new town corporations to do that and to consider each case on its merits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 14th May, 1959; c. 605.]
    I have no doubt that it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention to honour that underaking, but we have put down a new Clause to be helpful and to enable him to do so. We have done that since he has rejected the general principle which we and the hon. Member for Crosby and all right-thinking people accept, the principle that there ought to be a general compensation, but has admitted the principle of particular compensation for what he has called the hard core of cases.
    It is not only kindness to the right hon. Gentleman that has led us to table this new Clause. It is important that the staffs of the corporations should know precisely what their position is to be. This is probably the most important feature of the whole problem. This is a matter not only of the harm and unfairness which are caused to officers who may suffer as a result of the transfer of control of the new towns. It is much more important from the point of view of new towns policy, the whole new towns movement, all the corporations and all the staffs, and not only those who will be affected in the next few years. All those have been suddenly hit with a very great feeling of uncertainty about their future prospects. That is bound to have a most demoralising effect upon the whole staff.
    The right hon. Gentleman may say that the Clause will not make things very much better, because it will still leave uncertainty about whether they are to be designated. That is not our fault.
    252
    It is not the fault of the hon. Member for Crosby. Whatever one may think of the hon. Gentleman—he is not a person with whom I often find myself in agreement—one cannot deny his political courage. He moved his new Clause in Committee, and he divided in favour of it with my hon. Friends and I against the Government. That is to his credit. From the Standing Committee proceedings I could quote many interesting observations made by the hon. Gentleman with which I entirely agree. However, I do not want to waste the time of the Committee by doing that, nor do I want to rub in the difference between the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.
    I will recapitulate the arguments about compensation for loss of office. I mentioned a few moments ago that we were discussing this only 24 hours ago against the background of what happens in big business. I do not want to quote again the illustrations given then about the different levels of compensation offered to displaced directors of one sort and another, ranging from £83,000 tax-free down to a humble, measly £30,000. That is what happens in private enterprise when people are displaced from office.
    There is another example, again topical in the context of our discussions yesterday, involving our old friends the Institute of Directors. The Institute of Directors has an axe to grind—I do not use that phrase in an offensive sense—in dealing with what happens to directors of private water companies when a grouping takes place under the guidance of the Ministry, or under the directions of the House of Commons by a Private Bill, as a result of which directors lose their office.
    There is not the slightest argument about whether they should receive compensation; that is common ground. However, there has been discussion in the House of Commons recently about whether the compensation should be based on seven times or five times their annual earnings. That is purely a matter of degree. It is not a matter of principle.
    The principle of compensation is also beyond argument in many negotiated agreements in private industry. Although one may criticise the level of compensation in the recent proposals in connection with the cotton industry, the principle of compensation has been accepted without question by the House of Commons.

    253
    That is not only affecting directors, but also workpeople in the industry.
    Therefore, the principle of compensation for redundancy is to be found quite generally in private enterprise administering a public service, such as the water companies, and private enterprise dealing with purely business and commercial affairs, such as breweries and other concerns mentioned in the discussions yesterday.
    In local government the principle is even more firmly established and more deeply embedded in our legislation. The Clause in the form in which it was moved in Committee was identical with Section 60 of the Local Government Act, passed by the House of Commons as recently as last year. When the House of Commons considered the complicated problems of local government reform, the revision of local government boundaries, the changes which may take place in the allocation of functions which may lead to the displacement of officers, and so on, the principle was accepted that there should be compensation.
    It is nothing new. It goes back certainly to the Local Government Act, 1933, and, I have no doubt, a good deal further. Principles of compensation have been laid down in Orders by the Minister and accepted by the House of Commons. Throughout the public service and, as far as one can tell, throughout a very wide range of private enterprise, compensation for redundancy is nowadays accepted as a principle. It is something about which there is very little argument.
    3.45 p.m.
    Why should this little section of people be excluded? People working for the new town corporations are to receive nothing if they lose their jobs as a result of the change-over from the corporations to the Commission. Two arguments can be advanced. I shall be quite fair to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Committee in stating those arguments as dispassionately as I can.
    The first argument is that, when people were appointed to new town corporations, they went into what was essentially a development job, which was not going to last and which they knew would not last. Therefore, they went into it with their eyes open. What has
    254
    happened is not a change of Government policy affecting their positition, as takes places with water grouping, but a natural effluxion of events which everyone anticipated.
    The second argument is that, as a corollary to the fact that this was a temporary job, officials were paid more than they would have received had they remained in local government service or in the kind of jobs which they had if they entered corporation service from the private sector. On the second argument, which is the simplest to dispose of, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether that is true? Is it true that the rate of remuneration within new town corporations is higher than the rate of remuneration in the general service of local government? I suspect that it is not higher. At one time probably it may have been higher, but I doubt it now from the little information I have. Almost certainly the second argument is not valid.
    What about the argument that this was essentially a development job and that, therefore, people expected that it would come to an end? I gave the answer to that in Committee? I based it on as near first-hand information as I could obtain, because this was precisely the point which I, among others, had to deal with when I was a member of the Hemel Hempstead Development Corporation and had to try to persuade people to enter the service of the Corporation. Being men with careers to make, one of the first questions they asked was. "What is our future? Why should we give up a safe billet, perhaps in the service of a large county borough, where we are chief officer or deputy chief officer, with the almost certainty of promotion to the position of chief officer? Why should we give up that sort of job to come to a new town Corporation, which is an uncertain thing? It may be a flop. The whole thing may fail as a result of the litigation now taking place. The whole thing may fail through some financial crisis. Why should we come into the service of the corporation?" That was a very real problem for the boards when they had to recruit staff.
    In our case we were triumphantly successful. I cannot claim that the people who served Hemel Hempstead Corporation were better than the people who served other corporations, but they were

    255
    outstanding men and were among the top people in their professions. They came to us because they desired to create something. In this sordid world, in which one always thinks that people are activated only by financial motives, it is well to recognise that there are people with pride in their profession, who want to be architects or engineers and who want to create something which will be a little more of a permanent memorial to them than the mere day-to-day routine of administration. They came in because the job appealed to them and they wanted to try to make it succeed.
    I said to them, and I am afraid that I misled them, "If you succeed in this job, you need not worry. If the new towns are a success, it will be such a tremendous triumph that this will mark the beginning of a new movement, so that when you have completed your job in one new town you will find the new towns that will have started in other parts of the country clamouring for your services, because you will be the people who made Hemel Hempstead."
    I miscalculated abominably there. I never had much doubt that the new towns would not be a success, but I certainly did not think that any policy so negative and defeatist as that of the right hon. Gentleman would be followed. I never believed it possible that, in spite of the success of the new towns, the Government would take a policy decision not to have any more of them, and it is that decision, of course, that is primarily responsible for this problem.
    These are men who have been in new town service now for ten years and more. They still have something to contribute in the new town movement. They have devoted to it the best years of their lives, and could certainly offer something priceless to other new towns. They have been through all the problems of the creation of new towns, all the teething troubles, and could offer something that other corporations would be glad to have. Therefore, were there to be other new towns, there would be no problem, but because the Government have killed the movement there are no other new towns for these men to go to.
    These men are ten years and more older than they were. They have got out of the swim of local government. They
    256
    have not been going round in the local government circus, applying for jobs. They are not recognised as being within what might be called promotion potential of local government, in which everything is watched so carefully by those responsible for making appointments. In relation to local government work these men have rusted for ten years—though they have not rusted in the work of new town development—and that is why they cannot get jobs now. They cannot get jobs now in local government because they were prepared to help in the new towns.
    As I say, I do not want to make this plea only on the basis of what is just to the men to whom we owe so much, although I should have thought that that would appeal to the Committee. I am shocked that apparently only one hon. Member opposite cares sufficiently for justice and fair play to this splendid body of men and women as to be prepared to stand out on this issue. However, I do not want merely to labour that.
    The other aspect is probably the most important—not justice, but calculated self-interest. Although the Government may kill the idea of any future new towns, there are still some that are in process of developing, and the effect of this decision not to have any clear-cut methods of compensation is the most demoralising thing that could happen to the staffs here. Here we are considering men of whom many are in their forties or fifties. They are men, outstanding in their professional careers, who have entered into new town service. They see now what is happening to their fellows in Crawley, Hemel Hempstead and the other new towns that are getting on towards completion, and that will cause difficulty throughout the whole of the new town system.
    These people will not now be thinking primarily of devoting their lives to building up a new town of which they can be proud. Instead, for the sake of their families, they will be thinking of how they can get out as quickly as possible—and while they are reasonably young—and get into something safe, such as local government. Once they are in local government they are safe. They are protected from the Minister. Even were the right hon. Gentleman to bring

    257
    about mergers into gigantic all-purpose local authorities, they are protected—whatever he does—by the Local Government Act, 1948. But so long as they remain in the new towns they are not protected at all. They have not even the elementary rights of a director of a water company that is wound up by special order of the right hon. Gentleman. The Government have got themselves into a fantastic situation, and the effects on the remaining staffs must be quite demoralising.
    As we all know, the Minister is no fool—that is about the nicest thing that I have said of him for many months—and I can only believe that this is a deliberate attempt to throttle the new towns in an indirect way, because, without coming to the House, without having a great clash on a matter of policy, without being accused of being the man who has cut the throats of the new towns, quietly, by tightening the string, he can create an impossible situation for the corporations.
    How will the corporation of a new town whose creation is likely to take five or ten years be able to keep its staff or to replace it in the face of the knowledge that personnel now have that if they are found to be redundant and lose their jobs they have no certainty of getting compensation? Of course, if they get another job, compensation does not arise. It is always part of the compensation orders that those getting other jobs do not get compensation.
    We are dealing, therefore, with those who will not get other jobs. They will fail, not because they are not outstanding in their work but because they have reached an age, which many of us have reached, when the outside world decides that they may be all right at their own particular job but too old to start a new job or to go back to the job they left ten or fifteen years ago. We all know that that is what many establishment committees and other bodies of local authorities will feel about the man of 40 or 50 who comes to them seeking a chief officers job.
    We are, therefore, moving this new Clause as a compromise. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will apply this sort of means test, and ask the corporations—I suppose that this is how it will have to work and, although I do not
    258
    pretend to like it, if it is all that the Minister will do, let us accept it—to line them up. They will say to this one, "You ought to be able to get a job", and, to another, "You look unemployable. We do not give you much chance of getting anything so we will put your name up to the Minister and try to get you a hand-out."
    That is rather degrading treatment to mete out to an architect or an engineer, and to all those who have worked so hard to build the new towns; the men who have come into the movement not because they were the flotsam and jetsam of local government, but because they were the top people, the men of adventure who were not content just to go on ticking over but were prepared to go into something new. Those are the men who will be lined up and, if they are the hard core—to use the right hon. Gentleman's happy phrase—they will get a hand-out.
    We want the Minister to give us something in the Bill that will at least define what he has to do, and put on him and his successors some responsibility to see that it is done. To leave it just to the terms of an undertaking, without any Parliamentary authority for what is to be done, without any clearness as to where the money is to come from, will create more alarm and despondency than ever.
    There must be a proper system of compensation. That is vitally important to the whole future of the new towns. Unless the Minister is prepared to make a statement that will allay the present anxiety he should just go ahead and introduce a Bill to abolish the new towns altogether. Unless he creates a proper system of compensation it will be imposible for these men to try to keep going in the atmosphere of instability, uncertainty and fear that he himself is creating.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. C. W. Gibson: I, too, rise to ask the Government to accept this Clause. It is not only the chief officers, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) referred, who are involved; it is the staff all the way down the line. That the Bill has already created great fears in the minds of the staff is evidenced by the fact that the trade union concerned has been publicly

    259
    protesting, and some of these people are already seeking new employment.
    These men did not go into the new town corporations only because of the extra money. I know of highly-skilled technical people who went into this employment because they enjoyed working on a brand-new idea, the building up of new towns to enable people to live better and fuller lives. Some of these officers are already seeking other employment. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say, as he said on 14th May:
    "…I can give an undertaking that, from new town funds, whether from the development corporations or from the Commission, help will be given, if it is needed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 14th May, 1959; c. 605.]
    That is not the way in which the problem was dealt with when the nationalisation Measures were put through. Men who lost their jobs, or even those who had to take within the newly nationalised industries jobs at lower salaries, were given compensation rights. It seems to me to be only fair that if, by deliberate Government policy, we completely change the whole set-up in the new towns as a result of which some men lose their positions or have to take posts at a lower salary, they ought to be entitled by law, laid down in the appropriate Act, to compensation for any loss they may have suffered. It is because the Minister has so far refused to put any such provision into the Bill that some of us are pressing him. I hope that he will have had time to give further consideration to this matter since the Bill was in Committee.
    This situation is worrying many good men who should not be treated in this way as a result of a sudden change in Government policy. Most of them, naturally, expected that they would have a good many more years in the job of building up the new towns, and that when it was over they would be absorbed into the local authority organisation to which, under the law as it stands now, they would have been transferred. But the Government have completely changed that. They are to nationalise the new towns by putting them all under the control of a Commission which will run the show and which will employ some of the staff but, as the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have
    260
    admitted, will want to get rid of others of the staff. We say that if the Government do that they must, as a matter of elementary justice, compensate those people who may suffer as a result of the change.
    We have not so far been able to get much change out of the Government on this point, and I press it strongly. I would point out that already the organisation which represents these people, N.A.L.G.O., has been protesting. In addition, the published documents of the organisations interested in town planning called attention months ago to the dangers into which the Bill puts the staff of new town corporations.
    As a matter of elementary fairness, this new Clause and the next one—Transfer and compensation of officers—ought to be included in the Bill, just as in the past Parliament has included Clauses providing for the compensation of people who lose their jobs or suffer a reduction in income as a result of a change in policy instigated and implemented by the Government of the day That seems to me to be such an elementary principle that I am amazed that the Minister did not think of it in the first place and has not been prepared to include such a provision in the Bill, even at this late stage.
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say something more hopeful when he replies. If he does not do so, I ask the Committee to agree that this piece of elementary justice should be put into the Bill on behalf of staff who may be displaced.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: I support this new Clause because we shall be failing in our duty if we do not make some provision for these officers who are displaced.
    All of us who have some association with the new towns and their operation know the feelings of some of these officers who have done so much in the course of their development. When the Bill was in Committee it was said that we had set out on a new venture in accordance with the 1946 Act. Here we have men and women who are having to leave responsible positions which they took to further this new venture, and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have sung the praises of these people for the work that they have done in these new towns

    261
    I am at a loss to understand how these new towns could have reached their present stage of development if it had not been for the efficiency exercised by these people who brought all their valuable knowledge to the service of these towns.
    I am confident that the determination which I have seen in the building up of the new town in my constituency has been operating in all the new towns throughout the country. It is easy to say that these people who undertook this responsibility knew the risk that they were taking when they accepted these responsible positions. Of course, there may have been some risk, as there always is in any kind of employment, but to say that such contracts were for only a limited period is begging the question.
    I am sorry that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is not in the Chamber. He made out a good case in Committee on behalf of these people and I agree with the sentiments that he expressed when he moved his proposd new Clause and said that these people were engaged for an indefinite period and that the period was in no way at an end. It would be ludicrous, to say the least, to suggest that one could have speculated on the political future of these new towns. Yet it would appear that some people, including the Minister, really believe that these officers who are holding responsible positions should have been able to forecast how long they would be required in the service of new town development.
    Nobody yet knows how long it will take a development corporation to complete its job. The Minister has certain powers. He can say that, when it reaches a particular target figure of population set by him, then the corporation should be wound up. We have had that experience in regard to Newton Aycliffe. In the first place, it was said that, at a particular figure, the Minister would determine to wind up the corporation, but now it has been extended, and we are very grateful for that. But even a set figure may not be achieved for some years, and it may take longer even than the Minister expects. These things are not as easy as some people think. It is difficult to assess the nature of the problem and difficult to visualise quite what will be necessary.
    It was said in Committee that many of these employees who are to be displaced
    262
    came from the local government service, and my hon. Friends have reminded us that this is so. Many of them were, perhaps, over 40 years of age. What chance have many of them, after taking responsible positions and being employed with the corporations for ten, twelve or even perhaps, fifteen years, of finding another post within the local government service or of going back to the work they were doing at the time they left? If these people wish to go back to local government again, they will face serious competition in finding employment. After years of experience in local government. I believe that many of the young people now working in the local government service are constantly looking ahead to the positions to which they may aspire, and the employees who may be displaced as a result of the Government's Bill will have to compete with these young people. It will be an arduous task, and their future will not be bright.
    The Government should accept the new Clause. If private industry feels itself under an obligation to grant large sums of money as compensation for loss of office to some of its officers—and the Government say "Amen" to that—I cannot sec how the Government can escape giving support to this new Clause, even if the argument is used that the money will have to be found from the Exchequer in view of the amount of compensation which may have to be paid out tax-free to these people.
    The Bill may not have received the publicity it should have had throughout the country. The building of the new towns was a great venture, introduced by the Labour Government. One thing, however, is certain. The people who will be affected by the implementation of the Bill are waiting anxiously to see what the final result will be. The Minister has had ample time, since we met in Committee and since the new Clause was tabled, to consider the whole matter and be ready to say "Amen" to the application which is made in the new Clause on behalf of the people who have given valuable service in the new towns. So long as they are employed by the corporations or, if the transfer should take place, by the Commission, they deserve better consideration from the Government than what the Minister promised when we were in Committee.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. E. Shinwell: The Minister has a remarkable capacity for making enemies. He went out of his way to make enemies of hundreds of thousands of tenants throughout the country. Not content with that, he helped to introduce the block grant and thus made enemies among countless teachers and people in local government. The adverse reaction of his activities in that direction has yet to be encountered. Not content with that, he now makes enemies of those employees in the new towns who are about to lose their employment as a result of this new Bill. When does he intend to stop? If he goes on like this, he will make enemies of the Opposition. Then where will he be?
    Some time ago, I had some correspondence with the Minister precisely on this subject. I happen to have a new town in my constituency, and a very good new town it is—no thanks to the Minister. He had nothing to do with it at its inception, and he certainly has not helped it along since he became Minister. Ever since he became Minister, I have encountered much trouble because of rising rents, because of economic difficulties confronting the development corporation, because of difficulties about amenities, and the like. I have had very little help from him. As will be shown later when we discuss some of the other items, I have been confronted with more difficulties as a result of his decisions. He will hear all about that.
    In my correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman, I pointed out, quite rightly, I thought, that those employees who were about to be displaced, or who were likely to be displaced, were entitled to a measure of compensation for loss of office. There is nothing new in that. It is no new principle, as the Minister will agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) referred to what happens in privately owned industry when vast sums are provided as compensation for loss of office. Precisely the same principle applies in the case of nationalised industries.
    I put this simple question to the Minister. Let us suppose that, when I introduced the Bills to nationalise the coal mines and to nationalise the electricity industry, as I did, I had refused to
    264
    provide for compensation to the owners who were to be displaced. What would the right hon. Gentleman have said? What a row the Conservatives would have kicked up! There would have been a real hullabaloo about it. Indeed, I had to go to arbitration to ensure that everything was fair and reasonable. What is more, there are hon. Members on the benches opposite—there are not many of them there at the moment, any more than there were in Committee—who are today receiving large sums of money in compensation as a result of the nationalisation of the mining industry. There was never a word of protest about that. If it had not been so provided, I venture to think that the right hon. Gentleman would have had a great deal to say.
    What is new about what is proposed? Nothing at all. We are asking merely for the continuation of a well-established principle. That is all. I do not think that a great deal need be said about it. It is a simple issue. Nobody questions the qualities of these employees. All we are asking is that the Minister should provide regulations so that these employees, if they ask for compensation—and that question is not settled by the Clause; there is nothing obligatory about it—may at least have their demands examined. Either they are to receive the opportunity to be provided with the facility for making a claim for compensation, as is provided in the proposed Clause, or the Minister says, "No compensation in any circumstances", which is going a bit too far.
    I know that the Minister is a bit of a dictator, but he must not be too much of a dictator. I could say a lot of other things about him, but we can leave vituperation until later, if it is necessary, unless he gives way. This is not good enough. We have stood the Minister long enough. Some of us have been quite mild about it, but even mild people like myself cannot tolerate this kind of conduct too long. I shall not allow the people in my constituency, who are likely to suffer as a result of the Minister's indecision, to suffer if I can help it. They are very good people.
    I know what the Minister will say. Apart from the verbiage in which he indulges, he will say, "After all, they are entitled to a pension. They are probably superannuated. They have come from

    265
    local authority service and their superannuation will continue". But there may be many who have not come from local authorities, who are not entitled to a pension and who do not come within the ambit of superannuation schemes. In that case, what will they receive if they are displaced? Nothing at all. The right hon. Gentleman will say that they can claim National Assistance or can look for other jobs. It is not certain that they will be able to get other jobs, or if they find alternative employment it may not be so remunerative as their existing employment.
    We are entitled to be indignant about this matter. The Minister must come off his perch and must, at any rate, be a little resilient. We are not asking for anything definite. We are merely asking for something which is permissive, namely, that regulations should be in existence so that if a claim is made it can be investigated and if it is thought by the appropriate authority that a man is entitled to compensation he shall receive something. On the other hand, if it is thought that he is not entitled to compensation he will receive nothing. That is fair enough.
    I must ask the Minister to give way a little in this matter. If he does not, as T have said, he will make more enemies. My hon. Friends the Members for Widnes, Clapham (Mr. Gibson) and Sedgefield (Mr. Slater) are quite right. What sort of sentiment will exist in the sphere of new town development? These people do not know where they are. What changes will take place in the administration of the new towns? These men will be left high and dry, in the lurch and on a limb, because the Minister has not the resilience which is essential in these matters and will not give way. I will not beg him to give way. I say that he ought to give way and I hope that that is firm enough. If he does not give way, he ought to be ashamed of himself.
    Mr. Albert Evans: After the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) it is, perhaps, unnecessary for me to intervene, but I hoped that we should have the benefit of the views of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). He dealt with this matter in Committee. There he moved an Amendment which
    266
    was very similar to the proposed Clause which we are now considering. I regret that the hon. Gentleman is not here. In fact, so far not a single hon. Member opposite has said a word about the staffs of the new towns who are likely to be displaced. One would have thought that at least one or two hon. Members opposite would have displayed some interest in the fate of these officers who will become redundant when the new towns pass into the care of the Commission.
    I want to say a word to the Minister on three points. I know he takes the view that when these officers were recruited they understood that their job was a temporary one. The Parliamentary Secretary made this clear in Standing Committee. He said:
    "It was known right from the start that development corporations were temporary bodies. In the nature of the case, the corporations could never have given guarantees to their staff of permanent employment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 12th May, 1959; c. 589.]
    I doubt whether that is a true statement of the atmosphere which prevailed when the staffs were recruited. From my own knowledge, some of the personnel went into the service of the new towns with the impression that it was a job which would last them for the rest of their working lives. I very much doubt whether the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are right in saying that the staffs took on these jobs in the belief that it would be for only a short period.
    It was provided in the New Towns Act that the staffs of the new town corporations should come within the provisions of the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937. Section 18 of the New Towns Act makes it clear that the staffs of the new town corporations would be covered by the provisions of that Act. Therefore, these people, knowing that that was in the Act, would have been justified in concluding that, as they were covered by the Local Government Superannuation Act in their new jobs in the new towns, they were, for all practical purposes, being treated as local government officers.
    From my own knowledge of certain cases, some of these officers, if not all of them, who went from the employ of local authorities into the employ of the new town corporations were under the impression that, far from going into a job of a temporary nature, they were

    267
    entering a sphere of activity which would last them possibly for the rest of their working lives. The provision in the New Towns Act to which I have referred supported them in their belief that they would be treated in the same way as local government officers. I am sure that many of them will be very cross and will suffer a sense of injustice unless the Minister inserts a provision in the Bill that will ensure that they are compensated if they lose their job or suffer a diminution in remuneration.
    4.30 p.m.
    My second point, which is a very serious one, was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). This concerns the dissipation of the very specialised staffs which are now employed in the various new town corporations. It is already happening. The staffs in the various new town corporations are unsettled. They realise that the Government's intentions are such that it would be better for them to leave their jobs as quickly as possible. They know that if the Minister has his way and they subsequently find themselves redundant they will not be entitled to compensation. Many of them—often the most able—are on their way out, trying to get away from the corporations as quickly as possible because of the Minister's refusal to arrange compensation for the loss of their jobs.
    The Minister's obstinacy is undermining the confidence of these highly skilled and valuable staffs, and is bringing about the dissipation of this very valuable and irreplaceable type of officer. The Town and Country Planning Association had something to say about this in January. In effect, it said that it would be wholly deplorable if these valuable staffs, with their great fund of knowledge and skill, were to be dissipated. That, coming from the Town and Country Planning Association, is entitled to re-receive the Minister's attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes put the matter with some force, and I support him. We want to know what reply the Minister has to this charge. Does he understand that his action will result in the dissipation of these irreplaceable staffs? What has he to tell the Committee about it?
    If the Minister can see any reason behind the arguments put forward I hope
    268
    that he will incorporate in the Bill some form of words—possibly in another place—to meet our point. I appeal to him to try to act as a good employer in this matter. Leaving aside all our arguments as to whether or not these were temporary jobs, I come to the simple plea: will the Minister act as a good employer and treat these men fairly, as a good private employer would?
    It has already been said that many large private enterprise firms provide compensation if their workers are displaced. These large firms would think it immoral to toss aside servants without some regard to the service they had rendered, and without some measure of compensation for their displacement. Even small firms realise their obligation towards men who have been working for them for many years, and they would not simply throw them aside because of some rearrangement. The time has passed when even a private employer, let alone a Government Department, could pick up a man and drop him again whenever he thought fit.
    Upon that simple ground I ask for fair play. The Minister should reconsider the matter and provide that these men shall not be subject merely to an ex gratia payment by the Commission, but will know that they will be properly compensated for loss of office or diminution of remuneration.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): Fortunately, the new Clause has nothing to do with take-over bids or the activities of that admirable body known as the Institute of Directors. For that matter, it has nothing to do with the Local Government Act or the amount of the general grant referred to by the hon. Member; neither does it relate to the personal qualities of my right hon. Friend, although I am, of course, grateful to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) for his solicitude for my right hon. Friend and for the negative compliment that he paid him.
    We are now discussing a Clause the purpose of which is to make statutory provision for compensation to be paid to development corporation officers, designated by the Minister, who will suffer loss or diminution of emoluments

    269
    as a result of Orders made under Clause 6. We are discussing directly the question of compensation, and not of pensions, although I agree that the two things impinge upon each other. I may be a little optimistic, but I hope to be able to satisfy the Committee that what my right hon. Friend has had in mind, and what he has already embarked upon, is right, and that he is acting fairly towards those persons who may be displaced.
    I want to make it clear that, generally speaking, my right hon. Friend does not expect many people from the new towns to find themselves made redundant as a result of the ending of the activities of the various corporations. As the rate of development declines from town to town we know that some members of the staffs will begin to cast about for other suitable employment. Many members will be taken on by the Commission itself; indeed it is almost inevitable that certain grades of staff, such as rent collectors, will be taken on more or less automatically and will function in the localities where they are working today.
    Some hon. Members opposite have given the impression that the Government have done little or nothing to meet the claims made by the new town staffs. That is not true. A great deal has been done to safeguard their superannuation rights. Most of the men who came to serve on the corporations from the sphere of local government will have the right to an immediate pension, if they are unable to find reasonable alternative work within twelve months, and are within ten years of pensionable age.
    Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman said that we were not dealing with pensions.
    Mr. Bevins: I said that the two things impinged one upon the other.
    If, on the other hand, a man is not within ten years of pensionable age, he will be entitled to have his pension rights frozen.
    These provisions are quite novel in the sphere of local government and were designed by my right hon. Friend to deal with a special case. I ought also to mention that arrangements have been made to help people to find work in local government, through the agencies of the
    270
    development corporations and the Whitley Council, which are working together and doing all they can to help. Even so, as my right hon. Friend conceded during the earlier stages of the Bill, there will be a limited number of hard cases. He has already made it clear that he intends to ask the development corporations to pick out the hard core of individuals who are likely to suffer, and has said that if it seemed fair and reasonable to make some provision for them over and above the pension provision made by the superannuation regulations which I have sketchily referred to already, he would give an undertaking that help would be given if it were needed.
    In pursuance of that undertaking the chairmen of the corporations have been asked to undertake that investigation. In due course the measures to deal with hard cases will be discussed, through the new towns Whitley Council machinery.
    The question posed by the new Clause is whether the Government, in dealing with the matter in this way, are acting correctly, or whether it would be right to give these employees a statutory right to compensation on the basis of formal legal regulations. This, I entirely agree, is a serious argument and one to which the Committee is right to devote its mind. My right hon. Friend has always argued that it would be inappropriate to give a statutory right to compensation for loss of office on the ground that all these jobs with the new town corporations were necessarily for a limited period. I shall not rest my case on that simple assertion. I want to deal with some of the arguments which have come from hon. Members opposite. Putting it in the simplest form, my right hon. Friend has based his case on the ground that all the jobs within the new towns were necessarily for a limited period and that those jobs were bound to come to an end when the development came to an end.
    A good deal has been said this afternoon about precedents of compensation for loss of office. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee realise that all the precedents concerning staff or employed persons refer to staff employed by permanent bodies where the staff had every reason to suppose that the employing

    271
    body and their jobs would be of a permanent character.
    I cannot accept the alleged analogy put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes regarding cases of amalgamations of local government authorities deriving from the Local Government Act. I do not think that that is a parallel case at all. The truth of the matter is that development corporations were known from the start to be temporary bodies. So far as I know, no hon. Member has ever suggested that employees of the corporations were ever given any kind of assurance that their jobs were permanent or that if they came to an end they would be compensated. If that has ever been said by any member of the Government, I am perfectly willing to give way, but I think that what I have said is a statement of fact.
    Mr. Slater: Can the hon. Gentleman give an example of a case where a delegated authority has had its powers taken over by another authority, with the result that the officers from the previous authority lost their jobs and were not paid compensation? For example, a district surveyor attached to a district authority would receive compensation for loss of office when the highways were taken over by the county authority. What is the difference between the proposals in this Clause and that position?
    Mr. Bevins: I think that the difference is perfectly clear. In the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers there was a very natural expectation of permanency of employment whereas, so far as I know, no one has ever suggested that the employees of the corporations were ever given any kind of assurance that their jobs were permanent or that if they came to an end the employees would be compensated.
    In the nature of the case, no one could ever have said that at any time, particularly as the New Towns Act, 1946, itself provided for the dissolution of the development corporations. The truth is that this problem—let us be quite open about this—would still have been with the Government and with Parliament if the new towns had been transferred to the local authorities, because the work of substantial development would have finished in just the same way and redundancy would have flowed from that.
    272
    To turn to the argument of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes, which is an argument which merits serious consideration, he said what, I think, is felt by many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that although the majority of these men, perhaps all of them, must have realised that there could have been no permanency of service with a single development corporation, nevertheless, if the new towns venture as a whole proved successful, there would be some measure of permanency for them in, as it were, the world of new towns. I am perfectly willing to say that there may be something in that argument, but I do not think that it ought to be taken too far. Even in that case, there would have been no guarantee that the staff which left a moribund or dying corporation would have found jobs with one which was starting from scratch. I will return to that particular point in more detail in a moment.
    4.45 p.m.
    What is the problem? As I see it, the problem is mainly concerned with the men serving the development corporations who are now in their fifties and who may not find it easy to get suitable alternative work. Even if we were building another 10 or 20 new towns, there is no assurance that men in this age group would readily be taken on by the new development corporations. Of course, they might be, or they might not be—no one knows. I think, however, that one is bound to admit that it would be a very open question.
    My right hon. Friend is saying this to the Committee. If one of these men is over, shall we say, 55 years of age, then he can claim a pension if he cannot get suitable work within twelve months. If he is younger than 55 he is entitled, as a general rule, to a frozen pension. I should have thought that generally speaking—there may be exceptions—that most people younger than 55 would have no great difficulty in getting alternative work. I agree, and my right hon. Friend agrees, that there may be difficult cases in both of those categories—men over 55 and men who are below that age. When the examination which the chairmen of the new towns and my right hon. Friend are carrying out has been completed, these cases will be discussed through the new towns Whitley Council

    273
    machinery. I think that that is a reasonable proposal.
    To return to the new Clause, I should say this to help the Committee. As I read it, the Clause as drafted would cover only the hard case which arose among men who remained with the development corporation until the actual transfer order was made. It would not cover the cases which arose before the transfer order. As the Committee well knows, staff who expect to be redundant, or some of them, will be seeking employment over a longish period, perhaps a matter of months or of years before the actual date of the transfer order.
    It is only fair to say to the Committee that the merit of my right hon. Friend's scheme is that because of its flexibility it will enable the Government to pick out the hard cases and deal with them as they arise, however they arise, and whenever they arise. For all those reasons, I feel that the approach of my right hon. Friend to this admittedly difficult question is a fair approach. We are seeking to do the right thing by men who may suffer loss of office.
    Mr. Slater: Does the hon. Gentleman say that he places the responsibility on the chairman of the corporation to go into the cases of people who are likely to be redundant and, after he receives it, he passes that report on to the Whitley Council? Where in the world have we got to?
    Mr. Bevins: I did not say that. I said that my right hon. Friend had invited chairmen of corporations to examine potential hard cases and, having done so, to report the result to my right hon. Friend. Naturally, my right hon. Friend would look at these cases with sympathy and in detail and he would then make a reference for discussion to the Whitley Council.
    Mr. Gibson: Why not put it in the Bill?
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Yesterday, we were talking about "golden handshakes". The speech which we have just heard from the parliamentary Secretary makes me think that what the Government propose to do with these people is to wave them a rather desultory "goodbye" with a cold
    274
    and clammy hand which they have probably dipped in a frozen pension. There is no "golden handshake" about this. The Parliamentary Secretary made a speech which, for most of the time, related to an Amendment which was moved in Committee and was hardly related at all to the new Clause.
    What we sought to do in Committee, and I must mention it to explain the new Clause, was to introduce the provision in Section 50 of the Local Government Act, 1958, which gives employees of a local authority compensation for loss of office or worsening of conditions on the amalgamation or disappearance of a local authority. I should have thought that the ground for that was by now well-established, namely, that when the Government policy results in a man losing his job through no fault of his own he is usually compensated; and that is not the same question as to whether or not he is given a pension. The Parliamentary Secretary was perfectly right in saying that it was not the same question, and I shall not talk about pensions but about what is in the new Clause.
    When we put forward that proposal in Committee we had very much the answer which has been-given to us today—that most of these people will find employment somewhere or other. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, some of them would have found a job anyhow if the corporations had been wound up and the new towns had been taken over. These are only the hard core, as he said, and a wonderfully flexible arrangement is to be made about the hard core. They are to be left entirely to the good will of the Minister.
    I would not have regarded the right hon. Gentleman as a very flexible type, though we can all have our own opinion about that. The flexible arrangement is that the Minister is to say, "I will give you what I choose". How wonderfully flexible from the point of view of the giver, but from the point of view of the receiver it is rather unsatisfactory. The receiver would prefer to have some right, even to having Ministerial charity.
    I want to say one or two things to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister on the question of compensation and the loss of jobs. It is perfectly true that jobs

    275
    in the new towns were not to be permanent jobs. I accept the phrase used by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) that these were jobs for an indefinite period. The man who chose to go into a new town was taking a certain risk, but the risk was the risk as matters then stood.
    As the Parliamentary Secretary himself said, people were talking about more new towns. The intention of everybody, including, as far as I know, at that period, the Conservative Party—for it said nothing different—was that there should be more new towns. A man who went into new town employment was entitled to take that into consideration. He was entitled to take into consideration also that what he was going in for was a job which would last for some considerable time. He did not know exactly how long. Nobody knew.
    Now, by an act of the Government, as a matter of policy, there are to be no more new towns, and the man who went into this employment for an indefinite period is asked to accept a change in the conditions which he contemplated when he went into a new town. That is logically exactly the same, though in a different context, as the case of the man employed by a local authority which disappears through Government action.
    In this case the conditions which the man had to contemplate and form a judgment upon are altered for the worst by Government policy. Once we have that position we must realise that we are being unfair to people if we do not do something about it. It is not enough to say that there are not many of these people or that, "I am a nice, kind Minister and I will always give them a good gratuity at the end or find them another job or use this or that machinery."
    We are proposing to leave to the Treasury, as the Local Government Act itself does, the regulations determining compensation, and we are further proposing to leave it to the Minister, the right hon. Gentleman or his successor in office, to decide who among these people shall be designated and, therefore, entitled to receive the benefits of the Clause. It may be asked, "What is the use of that to any of them?"
    The answer is that the Minister can be called to account in the House of
    276
    Commons as to whom he does or does not designate. He can be asked questions about it. The real, substantial question raised by the Clause is whether the treatment of these people is to be left to the autocratic bureaucracy of the right hon. Gentleman, or his successor, or whether he or his successor is to be answerable to the House about what is done in relation to these people. That is the effect of the Clause.
    It may be said that there is little in that, but, in fact, there is a great deal. Apart from the power of individual Members to speak up on behalf of a constituent who may be affected by this change, the people affected by the change themselves know that the Minister cannot do something at his own sweet will. He must do something that will stand up to Parliamentary criticism and examination. We have gone a long way to meet any possible objections that the Government might make.
    I concede at once to the Government that it is true that the majority of these people will find other jobs. The gardener employed by a development corporation is an officer for the purposes of the Clause, but he is likely, and always was likely, to go on being employed by the owner of the piece of land in question. There will be some people, however, who will be very hard-hit indeed. These are the older people, and many of them are people with a particular skill.
    It is not for us to speculate whether they will or will not get a job with somebody else, or what their chances are and what can be done to help them. We are treating these people differently from what they expected at the time. The Committee is doing that as a matter of Government policy and we are as bound to give those people some right to compensation, and a right we can supervise, as we were bound, in different circumstances, to give that right to the people who lose jobs under the Local Government Act. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman refuses this proposed Clause.
    5.0 p.m.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman why he says that the Government are giving these people less than they were led to

    277
    expect? His Government, in the 1946 Act, made no provision for them in Section 15, which deals with the winding-up of the corporations.
    Mr. Mitchison: We had not reached this stage then, and if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Act I think he will find that the Order which could have been made under that Section could have made this provision. However, I agree this much with him, that we were then ten or fifteen years from the period of the Order that could have been made under Section 15, and it may have been that some legislation would have had to be introduced.
    I am not concerned with that; I am concerned with the substance of the matter today, and the right hon. Gentleman knows well that he is worsening the prospects of these people by refusing to designate any more new towns. These skilled people, particularly the older ones, stood much of their best chance of re-employment in a newly designated town. It does not matter whether I am right in my assessment. They stood at least a better chance of employment, and they have been deprived of that right, such as it was. They have been deprived of that factor, which influenced their judgment at the time, by a piece of Government policy.
    It is quite wrong that a piece of Government policy should be allowed to deprive people of something of that kind, of that prospect, of that chance, however high or low we value it. And it is for the right hon. Gentleman and the Government themselves to decide, in the light of everything, what it is worth; that is to say, what the amount of the compensation is to be—that will be in the regulations—and to whom it will be applied; in other words, the designated people. They could not ask for more. The only difference between what the Government propose to do and what we propose to do is this. We say that there ought to be a right in the House of Commons to see that the Minister designates the right people and to allow the grievances of people who lose their jobs, or have their employment worsened, to be raised in the form of Questions or Motions or other Parliamentary procedure.
    That is the right which this autocratic Government are denying. Their answer
    278
    is, "It is all right. We are nice, kind people. We have the most flexible minds. We will give them just as much coal and blankets as we think is good for them". That is the question raised in this proposed Clause, and I hope that my hon. Friends will join with me in dividing in favour of it.
    Mr. Frederick Gough Mr. Frederick Gough (Horsham) rose—
    Mr. Shinwell: Sir Gordon, is the Minister not going to reply to the debate? Is he going to remain silent and leave it to his Parliamentary Secretary, who made such a contradictory speech?
    Mr. H. Brooke: If the right hon. Gentleman would like me to say something, I certainly will do so.
    Mr. Mitchison: Before the right hon. Gentleman begins, Sir Gordon, the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) was about to ask me a question, and since we are in Committee, perhaps he can be allowed to do so.
    Mr. Gough: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for protecting me against two right hon. Members. I wanted to ask him a simple question. It occurred to me that what he was saying about my right hon. Friend was that the action he is taking precludes back benchers from raising Questions in the House of Commons if any of our constituents are dismissed and we think they have not received adequate compensation. Surely that cannot be correct.
    Mr. Mitchison: I do not see where the right hon. Gentleman's Ministerial responsibility arises. As I see it, there is no obligation in the terms of the Bill to pay any compensation to these people. This proposed Clause, however, imposes an obligation. Supposing the Minister walks out of here and takes a cab and overpays or underpays the driver, it does not matter that in so doing he is distributing money, but there is no Ministerial responsibility on which to found a question. Similarly, I see no Ministerial responsibility written into the Bill, except by this proposed Clause or something like it.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I said upstairs in Standing Committee on this subject:
    "If in the particular circumstances it seems fair and reasonable to make provision over and above the financial provision which is made by

    279
    the special Regulations, I can give an undertaking that through new town funds, whether from the development corporations or from the Commission, help will be given if it is needed"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 14th May, 1959; c. 605.]
    That is an undertaking I have given to Parliament and I am responsible in the House of Commons for the actions both of development corporations and of the new Commission when it is set up.
    To come to the principal issue, the Clause proposed by the Opposition involves accepting a statutory responsibility for compensating somebody whose job has come to an end, conceal it as they may.
    Mr. Gibson: Why not?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman asks, why not? He has been a member of the London County Council. Neither the L.C.C. nor any other local authority, nor any of the local authority associations, have ever contemplated a system of local government whereby when a man is taken on for a job for a limited period, he should receive compensation when it is finished.
    Mr. Gibson: That is not the point.
    Mr. Brooke: That is precisely the point. That is the difficulty about the proposed Clauses. They seek to extend to quite a new field what Parliament has always provided for when Parliament, by its own action, has brought somebody's work to an end.
    Each of these individuals was taken on to do a specific job. They all know that they are working for the Stevenage Corporation, or the Harlow Corporation, or the Crawley Corporation. They are not in new town service generally. They knew from the beginning that the new town they were helping to build would not continue indefinitely or cover the whole of England and Wales. It had to come to an end. Nor do I believe for one moment that people in new town service have at any time assumed that just at the moment when their part in building their own new town would finish there would be some other new town starting up, where they would have a prescriptive right to be employed. That simply is not the case.
    My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has advised the Committee, and quite rightly, that we should not
    280
    make this extension, and that Parliament should not endorse the view that, when a man is doing a certain piece of work which has a limited duration, he is entitled to compensation for loss of office when that work ends. In addition to that, the proposed Clause fails largely in its object because, as drafted, it would appear to me only to offer any possible help to a man who is actually in the employment of a development corporation at the time when it is wound up; whereas common sense will show that the work will have been running down and that the majority of the people affected are likely to have finished their jobs before the moment of hand over. In other words, it is not the Order that winds up the development corporation which brings the job to an end; it is the completion of the job, and that is not a case for compensation for loss of office.
    Mr. Mitchison: May I say a word in answer to what the right hon. Gentleman has said? That is the deliberate advantage of the Clause, that it will prevent people—good people very often—from leaving, as they are now leaving, the service of development corporations, because they know that if they stay on there they have, at any rate, some right at the end of the day. And it is right that the compensation should in this case be given, as it is, for instance, under the Local Government Act, at the end of the time and not in the middle of it.
    Mr. Shinwell: I must say to the Committee that I regard the right hon. Gentleman's reply as most unsatisfactory, and I think it ought to be placed on record, as undoubtedly it will be, as I am about to say—it will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT—that I hope the members of the National Association of Local Government Officers throughout the country will take note of the right hon. Gentleman's decision. I imagine that they would regard it as unsatisfactory, as my hon. Friends and I do. I hope that the Committee will take note of the arguments that have been presented.
    There are two arguments. One is that when these employees of the development corporations were first employed, they anticipated that their employment would come to an end in the course of a few years. So far as I know, they were not so informed. They may have anticipated that their employment would be

    281
    terminated after a few years when the development corporations came to an end, but they were certainly not so informed because, obviously, had they been it is very doubtful whether, at any rate, all of them would have accepted employment. That is the principal argument that has been adduced in opposition to the proposed new Clause.
    I hope that the Committee will have noted what the Parliamentary Secretary said. In the course of his speech, the hon. Gentleman asserted that, at any rate, very few men are likely to suffer. He said that very few will become redundant.
    Mr. Bevins Mr. Bevins indicated assent.
    Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman agrees. That is what he said. There are two replies to that. Ore is that if, after all, very few men are likely to suffer, then the amount of compensation to be paid is likely to be negligible.
    Mr. H. Brooke: it is not a question of amount, but a question of principle.
    Mr. Shinwell: We know that the Government are so activited by high moral principle that we are really a little dubious about it. We are certainly not going to elevate a principle into a position where hard cases are going to be left to the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman, or of any Tory successor if ever there is one.
    I repeat that the Parliamentary Secretary said—there is no escaping this—that very few cases would occur. If very few cases would occur, why boggle at this proposition? On the other hand, the assumption is that when these men were employed by these development corporations the expectation was that they were going to be employed for a very long time and that there was going to be very little redundancy. That is what the Parliamentary Secretary said.
    Let us take it a step further and deal with the other argument adduced. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that there may be a hard core of hard cases. What is to happen to them? The Parliamentary Secretary referred to them in a detailed fashion. Men of 50 years of age, perhaps 55 years of age, may be regarded as redundant. They will be dismissed. They may seek alternative
    282
    employment, but none may be available. They will be the hard cases, so they apply, not to the Minister in the first instance but to the chairman of the Commission, whoever he may be.
    The chairman of the Commission may in his discretion—not as a right, a duty or a responsibility, but in his discretion—refer the matter to the Whitley Council associated with the development corporation. The Whitley Council will go into the matter, conduct its investigations and will no doubt inquire whether the person concerned has an income or any capital available. It will apply the means test. The Whitley Council will, first of all, inquire whether the man has a pension or not. If there is a pension, the Council may think it adequate. Therefore, it is no longer a hard case.
    The right hon. Gentleman has said that, of course, Questions can be asked in the House. He has given an undertaking. I do not propose to enter into the matter of whether the right hon. Gentleman is likely to be in his present office in the course of the next few years. It matters not. But in spite of the undertaking, when Questions are put to the Minister of Housing and Local Government about such hard cases, about how they are dealt with by the Commission or by the Whitley Council, it is first a question of whether we shall get them beyond the Table. We have ample experience of that. We know the obstacles and snags that lie in the path. But supposing that we do get them beyond the Table and that the Minister is questioned, we know the kind of Answers that we shall receive.
    5.15 p.m.
    I had an answer the other day from the Secretary of State for War. This is a digression, but it has a bearing on the subject, and a very important one, too, and the House is not going to forget it. I asked a Question about a holder of the Victoria Cross, an ex-officer who in the First World War was responsible for an act of gallantry. He and his wife are now in receipt of an old-age pension of £4 5s. and the man has a disability pension of 25s. a week, which brings the total income to a little more than £5. The man applied for an annuity of £75 under the Regulations and was denied it. What did the Minister

    283
    say? He said, "I stand by the Regulations." There was a hard case if ever there was one. But the Minister stands by the Regulations, and that is precisely what the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government would say if he were interrogated by hon. Members on this side or even on the benches opposite.
    This matter must be regarded either as a right or the Minister should be quite honest about it and say that these people will be displaced in the ordinary course of business when their activities have come to an end, when the development corporations have been telescoped with the local authorities or when the new Commission takes over, that they cannot expect any more than the pensions to which they are entitled and that not all of them will be entitled to a pension.
    I have received no reply to a point which I put in a speech some time ago, when I asked how those persons come in who were employed by the development corporations but who were not transferred from the local authority and therefore did not come within the ambit of superannuation and were thus not entitled to a pension. Are these the hard cases?
    Mr. Gibson: This is a revival of charity.
    Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend is right. This is a revival of the charity society with the Minister of Housing and Local Government as director-general in the chair. God help people who come asking for assistance.
    This is not good enough. Hon. Members may think that I am not entitled to be indignant about the matter, but I am. These are acts of injustice. We are not concerned with our high faluting debates but with social justice for our people. When the matter was first pointed out to me I did not understand it because I am not acquainted with local government affairs. I put it up to the Minister and I am astonished at the reply. I have been waiting months for an opportunity of saying what I think ought to be said in this Committee—not that my hon. Friends are incapable of saying it.
    Mr. Gough: I fully appreciate the right hon Gentleman's indignation and
    284
    nobody in the Committee is better able than he in expressing it. But as the right hon. Gentleman has shown such great indignation, could he explain why it was that the Government of which he was a member did not enshrine this very thing in the first Act that they passed?
    Mr. Shinwell: This question has been put to us on this side so often that I think the time has come for someone who can speak with authority to offer a reply. We have been asked questions about nationalisation, unemployment, groundnuts and all the rest, and perhaps the time has come for a reply—I hope not a discussion—to be given bearing on the subject.
    The first answer which I would venture to give is this. When the new towns were first invented it was not a Labour Government that were in power. The Committee will see that the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) is not as well acquainted with this subject as I am. I happen to have been a Member of the House at the time. Not very many hon. Members now present were Members at that time. There are a few of us, like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and a few other of my hon. Friends who are present in the Chamber. Very few hon. Members opposite who are present this afternoon were then Members. I see the hon. Member for Southgate (Sir B. Baxter) sitting on the benches opposite. He then represented Wood Green and was a very inactive Member. I must say that the hon. Gentleman has persisted in his inactivity throughout the years.
    I remember that during the war when we were discussing reconstruction—hon. Members may be surprised to know that we actually discussed reconstruction in the latter years of the war—the matter of the new towns was mooted. It was left to a Labour Government to develop the idea. It may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who was then a Member of this House and responsible, may have omitted to mention the matter of a right of gratuity or compensation, in addition to pension, for these people when the development corporations were terminated. It may be that that was a fatal blunder on his part. He certainly ought to have done it. But that is by

    285
    no means the kind of excuse which should be offered by a Tory Government for failing to accept their responsibilities.
    There is another reason, a more valid reason, which has nothing to do with blundering or misunderstanding. It was believed by the Labour Government—I am within the recollection of some hon. Members present in the Chamber—that new towns would go on being built for a long time; that we should not be content only with Harlow, Crawley, Peterlee. Hemel Hempstead and the rest of them, but that we should have new towns scattered up and down the country—a kind of national spring-cleaning. Of course, that idea would never occur to the Tories. But that is what we had in mind—beautifying the country. And is it not necessary, when we think of the squalor which exists in Lancashire, Durham, London and elsewhere, and in Scotland? We thought it was necessary, and we thought that the building of new towns was going on.
    It is this Government who have come to the conclusion that the time has arrived to put an end to the building of new towns. And so, having acted in this arbitrary fashion, having decided that the building of new towns should come to an end, that we have sufficient of them, there is an even graver and greater responsibility on the shoulders of the present Government to provide compensation for employees who are regarded as redundant. Let them stand up to those arguments if they can and not run away with this pettifogging, pitiable excuse about hard cases.
    I would not trust them to deal with hard cases. I do not mean by that that the Minister is not, on the whole, a decent fellow. I say what I have said before, that sometimes even decent people ought to be ashamed of themselves. I will tell the Committee what is wrong with the right hon. Gentleman. He has a hard core, that is what is the matter with him. It is a kind of malady, a hard core, a kind of cankerous growth. There is no resilience about the right hon. Gentleman, there is almost no humanity about him. He only wants to deal with hard cases. We have finished with all that stuff. It is Victorian, it is Edwardian, it is Georgian—this hard case stuff. Now we want rights and responsibilities.
    286
    If the right hon. Gentleman will not concede our point, all the worse for him. I repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech. I hope that the members of the National Association of Local Government Officers will take note of this and will deal with the right hon. Gentleman and his friends at the critical moment.
    Mr. Ede: The point between the two sides of the Committee was put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), that what we are asking for ought to be made a statutory duty for the Minister. Then, if we think that appropriate justice, or even mercy, is not being shown to one of these persons, who may be dismissed with no immediate hope of further employment, we can get a Question or a Motion past the Table and deal with the matter.
    We do not want to find ourselves in the position that when we try to do that we are told that the Minister has no statutory duty to deal with it. From his speech in reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering, I understood that that was just what the Minister was determined not to concede. He does not intend to be put under a statutory duty to handle these things. But he will consider them in what was supposed to be the traditional attitude of the squire and the parson towards the rather decrepit workman who had served them all his life and at the end was merely an object for their charity, if they proposed to exercise it.
    What statutory authority will the right hon. Gentleman have to do the kind of things which he has offered to do? He says that he will give an undertaking regarding a case of this kind if it arises in the peculiar way in which it may come about, which is that first of all the person concerned is represented by the chairman of the development corporation as one whose case is a hard case. If the wretched fellow cannot convince the chairman of the corporation of that fact, apparently nothing happens. But, on the assumption that the chairman has been persuaded that it is a hard case, the matter will go to the Whitley Council. What power has the council to vary the terms of the superannuation legislation? If this

    287
    person is to be the recipient of payments out of superannuation funds—
    Mr. H. Brooke Mr. H. Brooke indicated dissent.
    Mr. Ede: I do not think such a person would have much chance of getting that, and I am glad to see that the Minister recognises it. This will not be part of the statutory contribution.
    Then the right hon. Gentleman talked about some development council fund—I think that is what he called it—and said he would get some money from that fund. Are there no statutory requirements regarding the way money is to be paid out of such a fund? Unless the Treasury turns a blind eye when dealing with the right hon. Gentleman, I should have thought it would insist on definite statutory limitations on any such fund, and the money which might be paid out to a person who finds himself in this plight.
    5.30 p.m.
    The Minister says that he will find the money from somewhere to pay these men something or other. Is it to be in the form of superannuation? Is it to be a once and for all lump sum payment, or is it to be some kind of annuity not at present known to the law? Where does the Minister propose to get the money from? Has the Statute that will enable him to do it been passed, or is it hidden in some remote and rather obscure Clause of the Bill we are now considering? Finally, what sum will be paid?
    I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the last thing that any of us wishes to do—and I am sure he would be the last person who would wish to do it-is to make some statement this afternoon similar to the one that the right hon. Gentleman has made and, when the time comes to operate it, find that there may be difficulties in finding the money. I admit that I have not been a very close student of the Bill, but I cannot find any power in the Bill to enable the Minister to make such a payment.
    The Minister says that the Clause deals only with people in the employment of the development corporations from the day that the development corporations cease to act. If that is a hindrance. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering would be willing to have consultations
    288
    with the Minister to amend the new Clause and include the people who may be regarded as losing their employment because of the impending dissolution of the development corporations.
    I urge the right hon. Gentleman to tell us where he will find the power to do what he has said he would wish to do if any person's name were brought to his attention as being a person coming within the ambit of the descriptions he has given us this afternoon.
    Mr. Gibson: The cold-blooded way in which the Minister has replied to this debate is unacceptable to anyone with any human feelings. We want it established as a right that men who are displaced and lose their jobs will be considered for compensation. The Minister, with a background which indicates his attitude to life, said in Committee, and he must not be surprised that some of us are very annoyed about it:
    "The sort of case I have in mind is where, during the immediate twelve months period afterwards before he can qualify for pension, he is trying to find another job, but nevertheless fails to obtain one and is in financial difficulties. Money out of new town funds will be available in a case of this kind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 14th May, 1959: c. 606.]
    That is charity. That is not treating men as men. That is not giving them any rights in the matter. In any case, it is doubtful whether there is any power under this or any other Bill to use the funds of new town corporations in that way. As the law stands the Minister cannot do it, and unless additional powers are given to him I do not see how he can.
    Even if he could, it is not good enough. I ask the Committee to adopt the principle which this House has adopted many times, that wherever a man or a woman loses his or her job because of a deliberate change of Government policy—and that is the position here—he or she has the right to compensation.
    The Minister's analogy was false. He said that I was a member of the London County Council with him, and that the London County Council would not compensate people it sacked because the job died out. If somebody lost his job because the London County Council amalgamated two departments he would be compensated. That has been done on more than one occasion, and it was done

    289
    when the tramways were taken over by the London Transport Board. All we are asking is that these new town corporation employees who will be amalgamated into a nationalised body should be given the same rights of compensation, and that the right to compensation should be written into the law so that we do not have to depend on the charitable instincts of the right hon. Gentleman or any other Minister.
    Mr. H. Brooke: They are not to be amalgamated into a nationalised body. The new Commission is quite distinct. The hon. Gentleman even now does not understand the situation. There is no question of people losing their jobs through some Government action. Their jobs will end because the work for which they were taken on will end. I have said before, and I say again, that no local authority undertakes to compensate for loss of office somebody whom it has taken on for a job of limited duration. Neither, to the best of my knowledge, has Parliament ever accepted that principle, and I am advising Parliament not to accept that principle today.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) first thought that this money would come out of superannuation funds. He was not a member—
    Mr. Ede: I did not think anything at all. I asked the question.
    Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned superannuation funds. He was not a member of the Committee upstairs, so he was not in a position to know that I had said that the money would come out of new town funds. The money will come out of the general fund which the development corporations administer. There is no reason why payments of this kind should not be made, and statutory authority is not required. I would not have made the statement I did to the Committee upstairs without having first consulted the Treasury and satisfied myself on these matters.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) complained that when he put a Question to one of my right hon. Friend's the other day my right hon. Friend took his stand in what the right hon. Gentleman described as "an inhuman way on the letter of the regulation". That is what the Clause is
    290
    seeking to do. It is seeking to bind the treatment of these cases by regulations. As I explained to the Committee earlier, the Clause would not enable assistance to be given to the whole class of people who may qualify for consideration. That is another reason why we believe that it is better to deal with these cases, if they arise, on an ad hoc basis rather than by any system of rigid regulation. I made it clear in Committee upstairs, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has made it clear here too, that there would be discussions on the National Whitley Council about the manner in which such cases should be handled if any such cases emerged as a result of the investigation I have put in hand.
    Mr. MacColl: Would the Minister help further about the general powers of the corporations to make payments? It has occurred to me that the powers of the corporations are to develop new towns. This is not a question of developing a new town, but of not developing one. They will, therefore, be making payments to people when they have not finished the job. What is the statutory authority to make payments to staff as compensation arising out of the general powers to develop? They can employ staff to develop new towns. That is within their power, but to pay staff for not developing a new town might be outside their power. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would clear up that point.
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) will find that it is not beyond the powers of the development corporations to make ex gratia payments where there is a case for them in the interests of the new towns themselves. The people about whom we are talking are people who ex hypothesi have given good service to the new towns. I am advised that it would not be ultra vires for an ex gratia payment to be made out of development corporation funds in a case of this kind.
    Mr. Mitchison: The Minister said that he would make the payments or direct the corporation to make them. Has he any power to do that? He cannot pay the money himself. Has he any power under which he can direct a corporation to make given payments to a given person?
    Mr. Brooke: I have such powers, but I was not contemplating that this would be done in that way. I am certain that if a case of this kind comes to light the development corporation itself will wish to act.
    Mr. Mitchison: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question?
    Mr. Brooke: Hon. Members will be able to ask me Questions because I regard myself as responsible for what is done by the development corporations, beyond those matters on which I am specifically giving them directions.
    Mr. A. Evans: We are dealing with public money over which Parliament should have close control. In what part of the Act is power given to the corporations to make ex gratia payments to members of their staff who become redundant? The corporations derive their powers from the New Towns Act, and that Act contains no Section giving them power to pay public money to redundant employees.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it not true that in the Bill there is provision to provide either pensions or gratuities to retiring members of the Commission? Does not that exclude any possibility of any other use of the fund?
    Mr. Evans: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. The Bill gives the Commission power to pay such gratuities. We are discussing the corporations, and the Minister says that they have power to make payment for loss of office. He has put that express power in the Bill for the Commission, and presumably the New Towns Act should authorise the corporations to make such payments. We are entitled to know under what power the Minister considers that the corporations will act.
    Mr. Brooke: I invite the hon. Member's attention to Section 2 (2) of the 1946 Act which empowers the development corporations
    "to do anything necessary or expedient for the purposes of the new town or for purposes incidental thereto;"
    That covers the matter.
    Mr. Evans: When an Act of Parliament authorises the payment of public money it usually deals with the matter explicitly. Does not the Minister think
    292
    the interpretation which he has given to those words is rather dangerous?
    Mr. Shinwell: This is a very important issue. The Minister has directed attention to Section 2 (2) of the 1946 Act and is relying on that Act.
    Mr. Brooke: I was quoting from Section 2 (2) of the New Towns Act, 1946.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Shinwell: In referring to the provisions of that Act the Minister said that the money could be paid for the purposes of development of the new town or any incidental purposes. What are these incidental purposes? Is there any instance of this provision having been used since 1946? Were these words intended to be construed to enable any of the development corporations to make ex gratia payments to redundant employees? Unless the Minister can answer that in the affirmative, he is on very weak ground.
    I direct attention to the First Schedule to the Bill, which is extremely important and which expressly deals with the question of gratuities to retiring officials. If there is an express provision in the Act to enable the Commission to provide gratuities for retiring officials, who retire because of redundancy or age, or any other cause, does it not exclude the payment of officials out of some miscellaneous fund to which the Minister has referred? What is that fund? Is it a separate fund to which the Minister makes a contribution? We know of no such fund. Unless the Minister can explain why there is this express provision in the First Schedule for gratuities in certain cases, with the apparent exclusion of any other kind of payment, the undertaking which he has given has no value at all.
    Mr. Brooke: I must try to convince the right hon. Gentleman that I am not speaking lightly or at large. I cannot say what the Labour Government meant by these words when they put them into the Act. I have to take the Act as it stands and to look at it in the light of all the circumstances. The Act does not read as the right hon. Member suggested. It reads:
    "generally to do anything necessary or expedient for the purposes of the new town or for purposes incidental thereto;"

    293
    The right hon. Gentleman said that that would not cover ex gratia payments. In fact, since the Act has been on the Statute Book a number of ex gratia payments have been made, for example to the widows of deceased members of the staffs of the new towns. They have been covered by those words. The accounts have been audited and presented to Parliament and the accounts of the development corporations, as of the Commission, will continue to be presented to Parliament. Parliamentary control will be assured. The Government propose nothing which is not provided for by existing powers.
    Mr. Ede: Since a certain famous journey to Damascus there has never been such an example of the sudden seeing of the light. Less than half-an-hour ago we were twitted for not having made
    any provision for this in the 1946 Act. Now we are told that the Act was so generously worded that we can do all this and apparently anything else that the Minister would wish to do in the way of granting gratuities. What a pity that the Parliamentary Secretary did not tell us this when he twitted us for not having made provision for it in the 1946 Act.
    Mr. Brooke: Following what the right hon. Member has said, I assume that the Opposition will withdraw the new Clause because the provision is already made.
    Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 205, Noes 234.

    Division No. 152.]

    AYES

    [5.48 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Albu, A. H.

    Fletcher, Eric

    McInnes, J.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Foot, D. M.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Forman, J. C.

    MaoMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mahon, Simon

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Baird, J.

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

    Balfour, A.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Benson, Sir George

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Mason, Roy

    Beswick, Frank

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Blackburn, F.

    Hale, Leslie

    Messer, Sir F.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

    Hannan, W.

    Monslow, W.

    Bowles, F. G

    Hastings, S.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Boyd, T. C.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Healey, Denis

    Mort, D. L.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

    Moss, R.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Moyle, A.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Burke, W. A.

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Holman, P.

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Oliver, G. H.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Orbach, M.

    Carmichael, J.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Oswald, T.

    Champion, A. J.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Owen, W. J.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Paget, R. T.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Cliffe, Michael

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Clunie, J.

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Paton, John

    Coldrick, W.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Pearson, A.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Janner, B.

    Peart, T. F.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Pentland, N.

    Cronin, J. D.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)

    Popplewell, E.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Probert, A. R.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Deer, G.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Kenyon, C.

    Randall, H. E.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Rankin, John

    Diamond, John

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Reid, William

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Ledger, R. J.

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Edelman, M.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Edwards, Rt, Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Ross, William

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Logan, D. G.

    Royle, C.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Swingler, S. T.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

    Symonds, J. B.

    Wigg, George

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Willey, Frederick

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Thornton, E.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Steele, T.

    Timmons, J.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Viant, S. P.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Stonehouse, John

    Warbey, W. N.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Watkins, T. E.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Weitzman, D.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Holmes and Mr. Simmons

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Fletcher-Cooke, c.

    Leburn, W. G.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Forrest, G.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Gammans, Lady

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Glover, D.

    Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Glyn, Col. Richard H.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Baldwin, Sir Archer

    Godber, J. B.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Balniel, Lord

    Goodhart, Philip

    McAdden, S. J.

    Barber, Anthony

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Barlow, Sir John

    Gower, H. R.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Batsford. Brian

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Green, A.

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Grimond, J.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Bevins. J. R. (Toxteth)

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Maddan, Martin

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Gurden, Harold

    Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    Mathew, R.

    Body, R. F.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Mawby, R. L.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Braine, B. R.

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Brewis, John

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Hay, John

    Neave, Airey

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. Chr'ch)

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Sir Allan

    Campbell, Sir David

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Noble, Michael (Argyll)

    Carr, Robert

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Nugent, Richard

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsm'th, W.)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Cooke, Robert

    Holt, A. F.

    Osborne, C.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Corfield, F. V.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Partridge, E.

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Peel, W. J.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Howard, John (Test)

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Crowder, Petre (Buislip—Northwood)

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Cunningham, Knox

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh. S.)

    Pott, H. P.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Redmayne, M.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Duthie, Sir William

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Robertson, Sir David

    Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Erroll, F. J.

    Kirk, P. M.

    Russell, R. S.

    Fell, A.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Sharples, R. C.

    296

    297

    Shepherd, William

    Temple, John M.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Speir, R. M.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Webster, David

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Whitelaw, W. S. I.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Storey, S.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES

    Teeling, W.

    Wall, Patrick

    Mr. Bryan and Mr. Finlay.

    Bill reported, without Amendment; as amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

    New Clause.—(POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORI- TIES TO DO THE WORK AT REQUEST OF COMMISSION.)
    (1) The council of a county or county district in which a new town or part of one is situated may, at the request of the Commission and for such consideration and on such other terms and conditions as may be agreed between the council and the Commission, do for the Commission any building or other work on land (including land outside the county or county district), being work undertaken for the purposes of the Commission's functions in relation to the new town, or any work preliminary to or connected with any such work on land as aforesaid, or allow the Commission to have for the purpose of any such work as aforesaid the services of officers or servants of the council or the use of premises or equipment of the council.
    (2) This section shall apply in relation to a joint board discharging functions of any such council as aforesaid as it applies in relation to the council.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    I hope that this new Clause will not give rise to as great a strength of feeling as the last one. Its object is a fairly simple one. There are precedents for it, and I hope that it may be regarded as universally acceptable.
    Occasions may arise after the new Commission has been set up when it would be a practical way of doing things for the Commission to borrow staff from a local authority rather than provide it itself for a short time. I am advised that under the law as it stands there would be no power for the local authority to assist the Commission in that way even though it seemed sensible to the Commission and the local authority that staff should be lent or that the local authority should in other ways give assistance and even though there was complete agreement
    298
    between the local authority and the Commission about the terms of the transaction.
    The sole purpose of the new Clause is to make sure that the local authority which might be either a county district council or a county council, should have power to assist the Commission if it seemed good both to the Commission and to the local authority that an arrangement of that sort should be made. I will willingly explain the Clause at greater length if it is desired, but I hope that the House may feel that this would be a sensible arrangement to enact.
    Mr. Mitchison: The purpose of the Clause seems to be both excellent and practical, and if the right hon. Gentleman never proposed anything worse than this we should have very little about which to quarrel with him.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 2.—(ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNC- TIONS OF COMMISSION FOR THE NEW TOWNS.)
    Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, at the end to insert:
    Provided that nothing in this subsection shall impose any duty on the Commission to maintain or increase the rents of their dwellings beyond what is reasonable, regard being had to rents prevailing in similar areas and neighbouring areas.
    Clause 2 (2) lays down the general duty of the Commission as being:
    "…to maintain and enhance the value of the land held by them and the return obtained by them from it…"
    It goes on to say that the Commission is to
    "…have regard …to the convenience and welfare of persons residing, working or carrying on business there."
    What we desire to do is to make it perfectly clear that the duty to enhance the value of the land and the return

    299
    obtained by the Commission from it is not to go so far as to lay on the Commission a duty to maintain high rents for dwellings where they already exist in the new towns or to increase the rents, and we suggest that the standard of what is reasonable in this matter of rents should be similar areas and neighbouring areas. I think we may take "similar" areas as other new towns in or about that part of the world, and in respect of "neighbouring areas" I think we may take the rents which are being charged for council houses by local authorities round about the new towns.
    I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman will suggest that something of this sort is not required. He may say that it is already sufficiently provided for by the reference to "convenience and welfare", but there can be no doubt that the rents in new towns in the past have tended to exceed the level of rents round about the new towns. There are all sorts of cases. They appear in report after report dealing with new towns. I remember cases in Peterlee, to begin with, where very large figures were given for the difference at that time. I think it is correct to say that in no new towns have the rents fallen to the level of the rents round about the new towns. In other words, the development corporation rents have been higher. In Corby, the new town in my constituency, there existed for some time, and there still exists, some discrepancy between the rents of the development corporation and the rents of the urban district council which had itself done a great deal of building in the new town for what have been, broadly speaking, new town purposes. That is how the question has arisen.
    It has not only arisen in particular cases. It has arisen for two reasons. The first reason is that the development corporations conduct their operations on money borrowed from the Treasury, and borrowed at rates which have risen considerably and which at present and in recent years have been a good deal higher than the rates applying to much of the money which in the normal course of things would be borrowed by a neighbouring local authority.
    One could go into detail about this. It is true to say that a great deal of
    300
    money in the case of some development corporations was borrowed at an earlier stage in their history under the Labour Government when money was cheaper, and deliberately cheaper, and that the rise has taken place under the Tory Government which has, on the whole, kept to a dear money policy for reasons into which I need not now go. It is true that recently there has been a slight falling off, but, by and large, it is still true to say that any recently borrowed money has had a fairly stiff rate of interest. The development corporations themselves in their reports have attributed the high rents that they have had to charge very largely to this factor. I remember that when the chairman of the Basildon Corporation was giving evidence before the Estimates Committee or the Public Accounts Committee he was questioned about high rents and asked how far they were caused by increased costs of building and how far by increased interest rates, and he replied that the increased interest rates were the most important factor. As I see it, the Commission will take over from the development corporations and it will be in a similar position. Monetary policy rests, of course, with the Government.
    The second reason for the higher rents is that it is broadly true to say that a development corporation has less opportunity of spreading its rent level over a wide area than a large local authority.
    Accepting those two reasons, as I do for the moment, I see, without approving of them, the causes of these high rents. They have become a matter not merely of social justice and social expediency but also one affecting the purpose of the new towns themselves. I remember that in a recent report the Cwmbran new town stated that it was finding it difficult, because of the high rents which it had to charge, to fulfil its purpose as a development corporation, which was to house people who were working in that part of the world and to provide accommodation for people whose pay and so on were at the current level there.
    There is yet another kind of case. Again I take Corby as an instance. During the recent difficulties in the steel industry when a great many people in Corby and other towns having large steel plants were either out of a job or at any rate on considerably reduced earnings,

    301
    the question of the high rents naturally began to become acute. There has been an improvement which we all welcome, but these ups and downs have been a part of the history of the steel industry for a very long time now. I only took it as an instance, and it is quite obvious that there may be other cases in which employment cannot always be relied upon, and in which a rent which was possible at a higher level of earnings become exceedingly difficult or even impossible.
    To put the matter very succinctly, as I do not wish to take up very much of the time of the Committee, the question of the rent of dwellings in the new towns has always been a very real one. There has tended to be a quite considerable difference between the rents of the development corporations and the rents of the local authorities, and the effect of these high rents and of that difference has been to make it more difficult for the new towns to do their work.
    If I may take one final instance, I remember very well ascertaining from someone in Corby what he was paying in rent for his two-roomed house—I think it was—at the time. He was a man of mature age with a wife, still working, and he was actually paying about twice what he had paid under a local authority in Scotland, from which country he had come to Corby. These high rents really have a rather perilous effect.
    I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not take refuge in questions of verbal construction. It can do no conceivable harm to put this provision into the Bill. It is obvious that there is a good social reason for having it in the Bill, and I can only say to the right hon. Gentleman that he sought to attribute to the words "convenience and welfare" in Committee a breadth of meaning which I find rather difficult to follow. If he has to say that, by implication, they include keeping a reasonable level of rents, my answer to him is this. He may or may not be right, but it can do no harm, in a problem which is extremely important for the new towns, to have an express provision in the Bill that the duty to enhance the value of the assets and the return from them should not extend to any unreasonably high rents in relation to any neighbouring rents.
    302
    I repeat that I am referring to the rents of dwellings, because it is there that the social danger of unreasonably high rents has been shown to exist and still exists. I hope that I am not to be led off this Amendment by the question of whether or not "convenience and welfare" include it, because if they do, it could do no harm by repeating it, and if there is any doubt, or even for the purpose of emphasising the matter, it is better to have it in than to leave it out.
    Mr. Bevins: I am afraid it is my task to fulfil the worst expectations of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), but, at least, I will try to speak as succinctly as did the hon. and learned Gentleman in putting his case for the Amendment.
    This Amendment would form part of the provisions of Clause 2 (2), and its intention is quite clear—notably that the Commission shall not be compelled to charge rents which are too high by reference to rents charged in similar areas and neighbouring areas. It seems to me that even if the principle of this Amendment were acceptable to my right hon. Friend, we should find it very difficult indeed, in relation to the new towns, to say what are similar and neighbouring areas. I do not want to make heavy weather of that point, but I think that from the point of view of construction, it would prove a very real difficulty.
    As I understand it, the Amendment is an attempt to restrict the Commission in its rent policies, and I must say that if it proved to be workable, it would have the consequence of producing a yardstick of what a reasonable rent amounted to, which would be quite unacceptable to the Government as a matter of policy. It is perfectly true, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, that house rents in the new towns are relatively high. That is so for a number of reasons. They are high because, except at Welwyn, practically all the new houses have been built since 1947 at the relatively high post-war building costs. As the hon. and learned Gentleman says, the development corporations have no stock of relatively cheap pre-war houses which they could use, if so minded, to moderate the general level of rents which they charge.
    It may be the case, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, that the interest

    303
    rates which the development corporations have had to pay have again been relatively high. We all know that rates have been high during the last few years; but, speaking from memory, the average rate of interest which the corporations are paying is little more than 4 per cent. on all outstanding indebtedness. Whatever the individual effects of these factors, we all recognise that in the new towns rents are higher than the general level of local authority rents throughout the country.
    6.15 p.m.
    Perhaps I should say that from the start of the new towns, it has been established policy that the outgoings should be covered by rents, plus subsidies and grants. That has been followed throughout the history of the news towns, and, indeed, if the attempt had not been made quite carefully to balance outgoings by income from rents, grants and subsidies, the financial condition of the new town corporations at this moment would be deplorable.
    Mr. Mitchison: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but he is now including the rents of industry in the new towns, as well as those of dwellings.
    Mr. Bevins: That is perfectly true, but, so far as housing is concerned, what I am saying is also true. If that policy had not been followed, the financial situation of the respective corporations would not be very happy. I think it is also fair to say that, although rents are relatively high, they have not proved so high in the past as to discourage people from wishing to live in the new towns. In fact, there is no new town throughout the length of Great Britain which has any difficulty at all in securing tenants for its houses. Indeed, most new town corporations have very lengthy lists of people who would like to occupy their houses.
    Here, I must fulfil the anticipation of the hon. and learned Gentleman, because, in any case, my right hon. Friend looks upon this Amendment as superfluous. As the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly said, it is one of the duties of the Commission to have regard to the welfare of the people living in the new towns, and that we feel must include the fact that they are not permitted to charge extortionate rents. That is to say, they can charge, quite clearly,
    304
    rents which are something like the rents which exist at the present level, but not excessive rents in the sense of rents which will either drive people away from the new towns or inflict hardship upon them. If they were to do that, it would be inconsistent with the Commission's duty as defined in Clause 2 of the Bill.
    For these reasons, this Amendment is looked upon by my right hon. Friend as unnecessary and therefore unacceptable.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: I wish to support the Amendment. The proposal it makes is particularly important for Scottish new towns. One of the difficulties about finding tenants for Scottish new towns is the wide disparity of new town rents compared with those charged by neighbouring local authorities. It may well be argued, and I would not disagree, that many local authorities charge unduly low rents, but it is important, if the new towns are to be a success in Scotland, that there should be reasonable uniformity between their rents and those of surrounding local authorities.
    Mr. Martin Maddan: On a point of order. I understand that the Bill relates solely to England and Wales. I cannot therefore understand the hon. Gentleman's references to Scotland.
    Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) is basing upon Scottish experience an argument which he thinks might be of use to the House. It is, of course, a fact that this is an English Bill and therefore we must not have too much detail presented about Scotland.
    Mr. Thomson: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, I was doing exactly that—presenting an illustration from my experience of Scottish new towns. There is another aspect of our Scottish experience which I will come to in a moment if I may. I am now speaking of the danger of pursuing a rent policy in new towns out of step with the rent policies of local authorities in the same area. It would be an improvement in that direction to have laid upon the Commission the obligation proposed in the Amendment.
    I will not go into that point any further, or give details of rents being

    305
    charged by Scottish development corporations and compare them with the rents charged by Scottish local authorities. I would merely remind the Minister of information that I gave him in Committee on the Bill, on the subject of the Scottish Special Housing Association. This is a Government corporation similar to the Commission being set up in the Bill.
    In my constituency we have had a situation in which the Scottish Special Housing Association was landlord of about 2,000 houses while the local authority was also a very considerable landlord. Their houses were mixed up on the same estate at different rents, the corporation rents being considerably higher than those charged by the local authority. That fact caused a great deal of difficulty and a lot of unnecessary friction, and made the work of operating a sensible rent policy very much more difficult than it would otherwise have been. My experience in Scotland in both those respects leads one to believe that the proposed Commission should have laid on it the duty proposed in my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment.
    From my experience in new towns I know that the rents being charged for the majority of ordinary tenants there are considerably higher than the tenants had been accustomed to pay as tenants in private, rent-controlled houses in London or other local authority areas. The Parliamentary Secretary argues that the high rents have been no obstacle to finding tenants for new-town houses. That is so, and is partly due to the desperate housing shortage in the London area. Many people find that rents now take a bigger share of their household budgets than they ought.
    An additional consideration is that new towns were not supposed to be esoteric and exotic. We wanted the new towns to be normal communities which, in due course, would have a normal life and be occupied by a reasonable cross-section of the community. There is a danger that new town populations, though very excellent people, as I have every reason to know, are not typical of the community, are not a cross-section of the people, say, from the London boroughs. They tend to be a higher type of community, from the ranks of the higher technically-skilled manual
    306
    workers. They make a very pleasant environment to live in, but they are not quite what was intended.
    We ought to have a much more balanced population in the new towns and the rent structure ought to represent the general rent structure of the communities around the new towns. It is for that reason that my hon. and learned Friend has put forward this Amendment. We ought to have had a much more satisfactory answer from the Parliamentary Secretary.
    Mr. Maddan: Following as I do the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), I am bound to reflect that the underlying spirit of the people in the new towns is not one of wishing to hire houses from bankrupt landlords any more than it is of working for employers who do not make profit. In fact, the hon. Member himself said that the people who live in the new towns are the industrial aristocracy of our time. I think that is true. If we try to build communities with great spirit in them we must be careful not to undermine the pride which they have in themselves and in their new towns.
    The Amendment is wholly out of line with that idea, because it would undermine in just exactly that way. Nobody enjoys paying high rents and everybody would prefer his rent to be lower; but it all depends on what we get in return. Nobody likes paying for an expensive suite of furniture, but if it is more comfortable and of better appearance people will be willing to pay more for it. The fact is that the new towns have good appearance, good layouts, and good houses with good facilities in them. The amenities are improved, the standards of employment are high and the factories are modern for modern industries which have great hopes for future stability, and indeed for expansion.
    What the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) wants is to undermine the whole basis of the new towns which have become an experiment of which we are proud on both sides of the House. We hope that the new towns will soon cease to be an experiment and will become part of the established life of our country, but as soon as we start putting into the Government's paw the houses in which new town residents live

    307
    we shall undermine the self-respect and the spirit of the people living in those new towns.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: The hon. Member will surely agree that that is exactly what the Bill does; it hands over the residents of the new towns to a Government Commission. He will understand what I mean if I say that I do not like aristocracies, whether they are industrial or otherwise.
    Mr. Maddan: Whether he likes them or not, the hon. Gentleman lives in the midst of one, and I am certain that they are all very pleased to have him among them. As to the Bill's handing over the residents to a Government Commission, that is entirely irrelevant. The houses were built by Government corporations, and as the development ceases the landlords of the new towns will become the new Commission. This in no way undermines the spirit and self-respect of the new towns or of the individuals in them. What would undermine the self-respect of the communities and the individuals would be to put their housing on an uneconomic basis. The Amendment seeks to do just that. It intends, In fact, to extend the charity.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought the hon. Member had concluded his speech and was replying to a subsequent intervention. Perhaps he had only given way; I may be wrong.
    Mr. Maddan: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I had only given way, but I was just about to conclude that the Amendment seems to seek to extend to the residents of new towns just that charity which the hon. and learned Member and his hon. Friends so much condemned earlier this afternoon.
    Mr. MacColl: The Parliamentary Secretary spent half of his speech explaining that the Amendment was vicious in its essence and agreeing with the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) that it ought not to be in the Bill. The other half of his speech he devoted to explaining that this Amendment was already in the Bill and was covered by the second half of the subsection, which refers
    "to the convenience and welfare of persons residing"
    308
    in a new town. If we followed the logic of the hon. Member for Hitchin, we would not have the second part of the subsection in at all because it limits the discretion of the Commission and does not allow it a free hand. That is what the hon. Member is objecting to. The Amendment does not impose a duty on the Commission and does not narrow its discretion but widens it. Subsection (2) places a general duty on the Commission to
    "enhance the value of the land."
    That means that someone has to spend more money in getting a return from the land. It does not mean that the Commission has just to break even with normal expenses, but that there is a duty to get the maximum that can be got out of the land.
    That is recognised by including in the second part of the subsection the qualification about having regard to the "welfare of persons residing" in the new towns. The Amendment seeks to add to that general protection of tenants and to make absolutely clear, not that the Commission cannot raise rents if it wants to or if it finds itself in the red but that it does not have to raise rents in order to carry out its duty to
    "enhance the value of the land"
    In other words, the situation we are envisaging is what happens where a profit is being made. Is the Commission to go on getting a bigger and bigger profit in order to carry out the duty of enhancing the value of the land, or is it to be enabled to have regard to the general needs of the community and to reduce rents? This Amendment merely enables the Commission to do that if it wants to. That is very reasonable, and there should be no objection to it taking account of the welfare of the tenants.
    Mr. Mitchison: I shall not keep the House for long, but there are two points I want to make. The first was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson). The object of the new towns, near London certainly, includes some contribution to the solution of London's housing problem. If the new towns are to have unreasonably high rents, or rents which are only fit for an aristocracy of some sort, they will not be able to carry out one of their primary purposes, which

    309
    is to help towards the solving of London's housing problem.
    The second point is that it seems complete nonsense to hope that the new towns will contain some sort of aristocracy and nothing else and to do so on the ground that we must not have subsidised housing. Subsidised housing is, of course, what we have always had in the new towns, and this Bill continues it. There is no question whatever about the actual subsidies. I should not take the point from the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan), but for the fact that there have been rather ominous signs of a similar point of view among other hon. Members opposite. It seems now to be a considered point of the Tory Party that the community which it wants to see in the new towns is not to be one generally representative of the whole country nor of the whole neighbourhood of a new town, but one simply limited to those who can afford to pay what, from the point of view of lower-paid workers, are unreasonably high rents. I cannot believe that that is a reasoned conclusion. If we want people who are getting ordinary unskilled wages to come from London or elsewhere to live in the new towns, there should be some provision to prevent unreasonably high rents.
    I think that the Parliamentary Secretary himself recognised that. He sought to import into the general words "convenience and welfare" such an artificial and remarkable description of unreasonable rents that he convinced me of the necessity of putting something more explicit into the Bill. If "convenience and welfare" can have the sort of meaning which he and his right hon. Friend
    sometimes attribute to that phrase, I completely fail to see how reference to
    "similar areas and neighbouring areas"
    will cause any difficulty at all. I went out of my way when moving the Amendment to give instances of similar areas in relation to new towns round London, and "neighbouring areas" means what it says—neighbouring areas to those new areas round London itself.
    It is true that the development corporations have had to balance their accounts and that part of their income is in rent. There has always been the question, in every one of these new towns, of how to keep a balance between industrial and commercial rents, on the one hand, and house rents on the other. Quite deliberately, this Amendment is intended to prevent development corporations putting up dwelling rents to an unreasonably high level while, at the same time, not making any corresponding increase, or making a decrease, in industrial and commercial rents. If the expenses of the development corporation—or, in this instance, of the Commission, which will be carrying on the work of the corporations—is to involve an increase of some sort, on the whole history of the new towns, and having regard to their social purpose, that increase ought to be in industrial and commercial rents and not in dwelling rents, which ought to be at a reasonable level. Stevenage must be a very remarkable place. I have never before heard of a place where anyone's dignity was wounded and one's pride hurt because one was not forced to pay an unreasonably high rent.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 220.

    Division No. 153.]

    AYES

    [6.39 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Boyd, T. C.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Ainsley, J. W

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Cronin, J. D.

    Albu, A. H.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Burke, W. A.

    Deer, G.

    Baird, J.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Balfour, A.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Diamond, John

    Benson, Sir George

    Carmichael, J.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Beswick, Frank

    Champion, A. J.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Chapman, W. D.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Blackburn, F.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Edelman, M.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Cliffe, Michael

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Clunie, J.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

    Coldrick, W.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)

    McAlister, Mrs. Mary

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Skeffington A. M.

    Foot, D. M.

    McInnes, J.

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

    Forman, J. C.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    Mahon, Simon

    Sorensen, R. W.

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Steele, T.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Mason, Roy

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Stonehouse, John

    Hale, Leslie

    Messer, Sir F.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.

    Hannan W.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Hastings, S.

    Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)

    Swingler, S. T.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mort, D. L.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Healey, Denis

    Moss, R.

    Symonds, J. B.

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Holman, P.

    Orbach, M.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Oswald, T.

    Thornton, E.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Owen, W. J.

    Timmons, J.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Paget, R. T.

    Viant, S. P.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Parker, J.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Paton, John

    Weitzman, D.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Pearson, A.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Peart, T. F.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Pentland, N.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Janner, B.

    Plummer, Sir Leslle

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Popplewell, E.

    Wigg, George

    Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Probert, A. R.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Willey, Frederick

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Kenyon, C.

    Randall, H. E.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Rankin, John

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Reid, William

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Ledger, R. J.

    Reynolds G. W.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Zilliacus, K.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Ross, William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Logan, D. G.

    Royle, C.

    Mr. Holmes and Mr. Simmons.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Altken, W. T.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Gammans, Lady

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, s.)

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Glover, D.

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsm'th, W.)

    Glyn, Col. Richard H.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Godber, J. B.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Cooke, Robert

    Goodhart, Philip

    Baldwin, Sir Archer

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Balniel, Lord

    Corfield, F. V.

    Gower, H. R.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Batsford, Brian

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Cunningham, Knox

    Green, A.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Grimond, J.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Bingham, R. M.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Gurden, Harold

    Bishop F. P.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Drayson, G. B.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Body, R. F.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Duthie, Sir William

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Braine, B. R.

    Erroll, F. J.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Brewis, John

    Fell, A.

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Finlay, Graeme

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Bryan, P.

    Forrest, G.

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    312

    313

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Maddan, Martin

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Russell, R. S.

    Holt, A. F.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

    Sharples, R. C.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Marshall, Douglas

    Shepherd, William

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Mathew, R.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Mawby, R. L.

    Speir, R. M.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Howard, John (Test)

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Storey, S.

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Neave, Airey

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Sir Allan

    Temple, John M.

    Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

    Noble, Michael (Argyll)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Nugent, Richard

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Kirk, P. M.

    Page, R. G.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Partridge, E.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Leburn, W. G.

    Peel, W. J.

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Wall, Patrick

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Pilkington Capt. R. A.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Pitman, I. J.

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Pott, H. P.

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Webster, David

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Whitelaw, W. S. I.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Redmayne, M.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Woollam, John Victor

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Mr. Hughes-Young and

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Mr. J. E. B. Hill

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 3, line 20, to leave out "whether".
    Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member would like to take at the same time the next two Amendments, that in line 20 to leave out "or on revenue" and that in line 21 to leave out from "allowance" to the end of the line.
    Mr. Mitchison: These lines are part of a subsection which deals with capital and revenue surplus in the hands of the Commission and which enables the Minister and the Treasury between them to direct the payment of anything up to the amount of that surplus in effect into the Treasury. These three Amendments seek to leave out any reference to revenue surplus while leaving in the reference to capital surplus.
    I agree at once that that leaves it open to the Commission to do something else. It is entitled to put a revenue surplus aside and, after a time, in ordinary accounting practice it may transfer it to capital and get round the matter in that way. I see no reason for an express provision for the transfer of revenue
    314
    surplus out of the hands of the Commission and back into the Exchequer. I appreciate the reason in regard to capital surplus, but not in regard to revenue surplus. What is the Exchequer's position? The Exchequer has lent, in one way or another, all the money with which the new towns have been built. That has been treated for all purposes as capital, interest has been paid on it, and so on. It is right that the money so lent should in due course, and subject to the general financial position of the new town, be paid back to the Treasury. Why should a revenue surplus be put into that same pool? That appears to be the effect of the provision in the Clause.
    It may be said that this is merely a matter of account; why bother about it, particularly as there is a later Amendment which would limit the total of these repayments? My answer is that one must look at the position of the Commission. The Commission is there, as we are told, to maintain and enhance the value of its assets and the return it receives from them, but subject to the qualifications we have been discussing. Those qualifications primarily are the convenience

    315
    and welfare of the people living in the new towns.
    If there is to be pressure—that is what I am afraid of—from the Minister, or through the Minister from the Treasury, to accumulate revenue surpluses and have them handed over in due course to the Treasury, there will be constant pressure on the Commission on the side of the maintenance and enhancement of the assets and the return from them, as against what is, in this context, the rather opposite interest of the convenience and welfare of the inhabitants.
    It may be the kind of case we were discussing on the last Amendment, namely, the question of the level at which the rents of houses in the new towns are to be fixed. It may be a different question, such as the extent of the contribution towards community purposes and amenities which the Commission will make. Equally, it may be in relation to commercial and industrial rents. In the nature of the case, the Commission is a holding body. So far as its finances are concerned, it is simply its duty to maintain and enhance the capital value, but not to make and accumulate revenue surpluses. The history of the new towns in relation to things like rent levels and the provision of amenities is such that a provision for a transfer of revenue surplus in this way has dangerous implications.
    I shall not repeat what has been said about high rents or the admission by the Government that rents in the new towns, as is the fact, have been distinctly higher than elsewhere. Up to date, the provision of amenities, which is provided for in the Bill, has been distinctly on the scanty side, and the Government recognise that in some Clauses of the Bill to which I need not refer in detail.
    There is again a real danger when one comes to the question of industrial and commercial rents. I should not be in order if I went into it in any detail, but it is clear that one of the major problems confronting the new towns, and therefore confronting the Commission as and when it takes them over, is the provision of sufficient employment, particularly for the young people who are growing up in these new towns. If sufficient employment is to be provided, industry, new factories, new offices, etc., must be attracted to the new towns. I would
    316
    sooner see any surplus that there was "ploughed back into the business", to use a phrase perhaps more appropriate to yesterday's debate, than handed back to the Treasury as a revenue surplus.
    Mr. Maddan: What the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has just said seems to be a complete contradiction of what he said several minutes ago, when he concluded his speech on the previous Amendment by saying that perhaps under certain circumstances the rents of factories, offices and the like should be increased at the expense of house rents.
    Mr. Mitchison: I am glad that the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) has given me the opportunity to explain what I said. I said that, if the value of the assets and the return from them are to be enhanced, it is very much better that that should be done out of the rents of factories and offices rather than out of the rents of dwellings, which seem to me to be already too high for the social purposes of the new towns. If employment, especially youth employment, is to be attracted to these new towns, further factories and offices must be provided. That is a matter which I cannot go into at length on this Amendment, but I am sure that we all recognise the need for it. The hon. Gentleman particularly will recognise the need, because he represents a new town and he knows how threatening and potentially acute the whole problem of youth employment is there.
    I do not want money to be accumulated as a revenue surplus when it might be much better used to reduce rents of dwellings, if that is the right thing to do having regard to their level, or, if it is thought better to do so, the rents of offices and factories to provide additional employment. I need not go into the distribution between one and another. I simply say that, having regard to what it is doing and what it has to do, the Commission and its Committees will not be in any position to accumulate a revenue surplus, that it ought not to be encouraged to do so and that, so far as there is a revenue surplus and it is not desired to plough it back into the undertaking, it can after a time be transferred to capital and moved over in that way.

    317
    The broad question raised by the Amendment is whether the object of the Commission should be to make the revenue received, principally from rents, such that there will be a surplus of such an order that it might be transferred to the Exchequer under the provisions of subsection (7). My answer is that it is not, and should not be, the function of the Commission to accumulate a revenue surplus of that order. I am not for a moment contesting that it should pay its way as it goes. I am not on that point. We know enough of what is going on in the new towns and of what is probable in their immediate future to say, with confidence, that any revenue surplus ought to be used to reduce rents, to provide more amenities and for various other purposes which will no doubt be known to hon. Members representing new towns. It ought not to be used to pay back to the Treasury what was originally a capital advance, and what will in due course be repaid as a capital advance.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. A. Evans: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I am sure that neither the Minister nor the Treasury regards this Bill as a means by which the Treasury can make a profit out of the growth of the new towns. The Amendment embodies that principle. The Treasury is entitled to be repaid such sums as have been advanced to the new town corporations in the past. Those sums are the liabilities of the corporations and we all agree that they must be met by the Commission, when it becomes possessed of the assets and liabilities of the new towns, and that payment by the Commission to the Treasury must be assured.
    The Amendment says that if a surplus accrues to the Commission as a result of the further growth and prosperity of the new towns it should go, not to the Treasury but to the provision of the amenities and the further consolidation of the societies in each of the new towns. We all want to see the new towns grow further in community spirit and consciousness, and to develop that consciousness the Commission will need money. The Commission must have the funds necessary to carry out the duties laid on it by Clause 2.
    318
    In effect, the Amendment says that the funds required by the Commission to carry out those duties shall be any surpluses accruing to the Commission as the years go by. It is a simple Amendment, and one which I would have thought the Minister could approve in principle. He might also agree that any surplus should be ploughed back into the new towns to be used by the Commission for their betterment—
    Mr. Frederic Harris: Surely, such revenue should be capitalised before it is spent on capital expenditure, if it cannot be spent just at the moment?
    Mr. Evans: I do not quite understand that. If this enterprise shows a surplus on its working, that is money that any private firm would devote to dividends or capital development. Here it would be money that was surplus to current liabilities and, therefore, available for further capital development; in this case, for the improvement of the facilities and amenities of the new towns.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The subsection that it is now sought to amend is designed for the simple purpose of providing for what may happen when there is a revenue surplus. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) seemed to me to be reading into the subsection some emotional or hortatory content that is not there.
    The way in which the Commission shall carry on its business is set out in earlier parts of the Clause, and we are all familiar now, especially those of us who have been on the Standing Committee, with the Commission's duty to maintain and enhance the value of the land, and also with its power to serve the convenience or welfare of people residing, working or carrying on business in the new towns.
    Up to the present, the new towns have not, collectively, thrown up a surplus of revenue account. Indeed, as I said on Second Reading, in the last year for which we have the accounts—1957–58—there was an aggregate net deficit of some £900,000, and at 31st March, 1958, the twelve new towns in England and Wales, of which I now speak, were carrying forward an accumulated deficit totalling some £4½ million.

    319
    That position has improved, and we all hope that over the 60-year period of the loans the new towns as a whole will break even, but, as I also told the Standing Committee, Crawley, which is most likely to be the first new town to be completed and, therefore, the first to be transferred to the new Commission, is at present running at a deficit, so to speak, and he would certainly be a bold man who would say that Crawley would be out of the red in the financial sense by the time development was completed.
    I can, therefore, assure the House that the Commission is not likely to start off with a revenue surplus in the first year but, quite clearly, in this legislation we must envisage that revenue surpluses may arise—we have to look ahead for a number of years—and there may be legislation at some time, although I do not know about that. We were certainly assuming in Standing Committee that we were making provisions for the next 10, 15 or 20 years—the stage of settling down—and that Parliament might then have to look again at the matter.
    If revenue surpluses are thrown up, what is to happen to them? Either they must accumulate and lie idly in the bank—and I do not think that anybody would seriously maintain that to be the right use for public money—or be ploughed back into the new towns in some way. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned a third possibility; that, unless the subsection is amended, they might be transferred to capital account and then paid over to the Treasury.
    At this stage, I must say that I think we had better not provide for capital and revenue to be used interchangeably. It is better to recognise that surpluses may arise on either revenue or capital account. The responsibilities of the Commission for the convenience and welfare of people living in the towns has already been indicated in the Bill, so that there is no question of the Commission, when considering its financial position, simply forgetting about those people. It is one of their responsibilities to have regard to them.
    At the same time, I would put it to the House that it would be unreasonable if we were to envisage that the only two possibilities for the disposal of a revenue surplus would be either to keep it idle in the bank indefinitely or to plough it
    320
    back into the new towns. This is public money. The surplus has been earned by the wise administration of public money, and it would seem that its disposal ought to be determined in the widest public interest rather than that it should be automatically hypothecated for the benefit of people living in the towns. This £300 million or £400 million of capital expenditure from which the revenue surplus would accrue has been provided not only by the people living in Stevenage, Harlow, Crawley and elsewhere but by the whole population of the country. It is the investment of the nation as a whole, and the nation as a whole should receive some consideration in the disposal of any surplus if a surplus should arise.
    I am aware of the views that have been expressed not only in this House but outside by the Town and Country Planning Association bearing on this point, that if there is a true surplus it should either be ploughed back into the towns or be used to finance further overspill operations elsewhere. Frankly, I do not think that sort of argument has ever commended itself to Parliament in relation to any other public undertakings. For a number of years when I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I watched the financial outcome of the transactions of the Carlisle State management scheme, but I cannot recollect anybody suggesting that the profits made on that scheme should necessarily be ploughed back into bigger and better public houses in Carlisle. Yet that seems to me to be a fairly close parallel with what is suggested in this case.
    The Government of the day must retain freedom to decide in the broadest interests how a revenue surplus should be disposed of according to the circumstances and needs of the time, and I do not think any responsible Government could bind itself by Statute, as it appears to me that these Amendments would so bind it, to earmark that part of public funds for particular services for all time.
    Those are the reasons why I could not advise the House to accept these Amendments. It is not the case that any revenue surplus will automatically get paid over to the Treasury. There have got to be consultations. Consideration has to be given, as laid down here, to the future requirements of the Commission, including—and we introduced this Amendment

    321
    in Committee—any contributions that may fall to be made to providing amenities under subsection (4, b), and also consideration has to be given to the possible needs of transfer to reserve.
    Indeed, as I explained in Committee, there could be no question of the Minister directing the Commission to hand over a revenue surplus to the Treasury when it was quite clear that perhaps the next year or the year after, or the year after that, the Commission was likely to run into deficit. One must be sensible about all these things. But it seems to the Government common sense to provide specifically in this Bill for what may happen if a revenue surplus is thrown up. We ought not to let the Bill go from the House in a position so that if a revenue surplus does emerge only two things can be done with it—either that it should be ploughed back into the towns or that it should lie idle.
    It may well be that, in the circumstances of the time, a revenue surplus which has emerged from the use of public funds should be paid into the national Exchequer and used in some other way for the benefit of the people as a whole. We are not saying that always will happen, but we are saying that it is right that the Bill should provide for that as a third possibility.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: I followed with fascination the speech which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman. I could not make up my mind whether he was speaking in his present capacity as Minister of Housing and Local Government and for new towns, or in his past capacity as Financial Secretary to the Treasury. When he said to us, in such characteristic tones with which we who were in the Committee have become so familiar, that we must be sensible in this matter, he was meaning that we must be sensible from the point of view of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and not, as far as I could understand, sensible from the point of view of the Minister responsible for one of the greatest social experiments that have ever taken place in this country.
    The question at issue here is what sort of share the new towns and the communities which exist there are going to
    322
    enjoy of the revenues that they themselves will play a considerable part in creating. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman's analogy between the new towns and the pubs in Carlisle was singularly inappropriate and ill-chosen. The reasons for passing the public houses of Carlisle into public ownership date back many years, and they were very different from the reasons for setting up the new towns. Whatever may be the merits or demerits of passing over the revenues of the Carlisle pubs to the Treasury—and, not being a drinker of beer in Carlisle pubs I do not know, but I should guess that there are two points of view on that—they do not seem to apply to the new towns. The State-owned pubs are business undertakings, nationally owned, and they ought to be run, I take it, as business propositions.
    Is the Minister saying to us, as the Minister responsible for this great social experiment, that the new towns are to be treated simply as a commercial proposition to which one should apply commercial standards of accounting? It does not seem to me to be the proper way to approach the matter. Certainly the taxpayers of this country, who have put up the investment in the new towns and who provided the capital which allowed the new towns to be built, should have serious consideration in the financial running of the new towns. We must make sure that the money that the nation as a whole has put up is properly looked after. If there is a surplus on it, we must deal with that surplus in the national interest as well as in the interests of the new towns.
    The purpose of setting up the new towns was not to make a surplus. The purpose was to establish new and decent communities which would set a new standard of how people should live together in communities. If the motive in having new towns is the motive which ought to be dominant in the mind of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and it is not, perhaps, the motive which was dominant in the mind of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the first charge on the surplus of the new towns ought to be to increase then-amenities and not necessarily to increase the amenities of a particular new town in which that surplus is earned.

    323
    There will be inequalities amongst the new towns. Some new towns will be in a more fortunate position than others. I should have thought that the surplus ought to be earmarked in the first instance for the same kind of operations which led to the success in the new town which has earned a surplus. There is a good deal to be said from the Town and Country Planning Association point of view that the surplus should be earmarked for further overspill operations which would help to extend the present benefits of new towns to many thousands of other people throughout the country.
    The Minister, in rejecting the Amendment, is adopting the sort of attitude which we do not expect from the Minister responsible for standing up to the Treasury on behalf of good standards of town planning. He has adopted the attitude of the watch-dog of the Treasury. It is most unfortunate that he should have divested himself of his present position and reverted to his previous post in the Government.
    Mr. Gough: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) made two points to which a reply should be given. First, he spoke of the share which the people in the new towns should have out of the prosperity of the towns, that is, from the surpluses. I am very interested in this, for I represent one of the new towns. This matter is clearly mentioned in the Clause as it stands. It is provided that these revenue surpluses, should they arise, will be transferred only after making provision for suitable reserves and after providing such amenities as are mentioned in subsection (4, b).
    The hon. Gentleman admitted that the nation as a whole, which has made an investment of hundreds of millions of pounds, should be properly looked after. In my view, we should go further. We have always said that not only should the taxpayer be properly looked after, but the moneys should be repaid. They will never be paid back unless, when there are any revenue surpluses over and above what is required for suitable reserves and amenities, those revenue surpluses, with the capital surpluses, go towards final repayment, as we all hope, in sixty years.
    Mr. Slater: I find the attitude of the Minister and the attitude of the hon.
    324
    Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough), who represents one of the new towns, very significant. I cross swords with them here. I do not know what has happened in the hon. Gentleman's constituency during the last three years. I assume that rents there have gone up tremendously as a result of Government policy, as they have in other new towns. I do not know whether it is the case in his new town that a very high proportion of the families find that it is necessary for both husband and wife to take up employment in order to meet the costs imposed upon them as a result of living in the new town. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that in the new town in my constituency the majority of wives have to work in order to augment the family budgets in an effort to meet the increased rents.
    What is to be the position of the Commission, having regard to the high rents which people are having to meet and having regard to the fact that property may deteriorate over the years? Does the Minister really think that the reserves available will be sufficient to meet any form of deficiency which may arise in respect of the property? What accommodation—
    Mr. Speaker: I hardly think that this arises on the Amendment. All that the Amendment does is to seek to provide that if there is a revenue surplus it need not be paid into the Treasury. It applies only if there is a revenue surplus. There is nothing in the Amendment about how the revenue surplus arises. As I understood him, the hon. Gentleman was arguing about the causes of a possible surplus. I think that that is outside the Amendment.
    Mr. Slater: My point, Mr. Speaker, relates to the use of the surplus which is bound to result from the high rents that tenants in the new towns are having to pay. I want to know what accommodation the tenants in new towns will receive under the Clause which the Minister seeks to have put in the Bill. The Amendment is designed to give better accommodation to them.
    Mr. Mitchison: As one hon. Member quite rightly pointed out, this is a revenue surplus, so far as the Bill goes, after providing for future requirements.

    325
    The right hon. Gentleman chooses to call it public money. That is not quite right. Public money has been lent to the development corporations and it has been used to create various assets, houses, for instance, and the revenue comes from letting the houses or from letting other assets such as factories and so forth. It is not in that sense public money at all. It is the return which the development corporation or, in this instance, the Commission will receive from the use of assets supplied out of public funds
    I take leave to remind the House again that interest has been paid and is being paid on the loans. The question now is, ought the Treasury, in addition to the capital repayment of its advances and in addition to the interest paid on those advances, to have the revenue surplus as well? We say that it should not. The right hon. Gentleman asks what we would do with it; should we leave it idle in the bank? The answer to that, of course, is that one may temporarily have to do something like that with it, but, ultimately, what we want to do is what I called—he followed the phrase—plough it back into the undertaking of the new town.
    The right hon. Gentleman asks us why. The answer is that one must look a little at the facts of this particular problem. I accept entirely what the right hon. Gentleman said, that there will be no question of a revenue surplus for the Commission as a whole for quite a number of years. Moreover, I assert that, when that question does arise, we shall be very near indeed to the moment when Parliament will have to look at the matter again—as the right hon. Gentleman puts it—or when some future Parliament—as I prefer to put it—will have to put into the Bill a number of things about the future of new towns which the right hon. Gentleman has been studiously anxious to leave out. Those are the answers to such questions as what is to happen to the new towns finally, and when will it happen?
    For the moment, what is the position? There are rents from both houses and factories which really ought to be reduced. There are amenities which should be provided. It is possible that further advances will be made from the Treasury and used for some of those
    326
    purposes, but what we are now considering is this. If there is a revenue surplus, what is the right thing to do with it? My answer is that the right thing to do with it is to let it go back to the new towns and the inhabitants of the new towns to use in lowering rents. providing amenities and so on.
    There is no equity at all in allowing the Treasury to have the revenue surplus when it is not entitled to it, and when the surplus is, in fact, what has been taken from the pockets of the new town as a community. The surplus, if there is too much, is due back to the members of the new town community, not to the Treasury. On every principle of financial fairness, there ought not to be a revenue surplus for any length of time. It ought to be ploughed back, to use that expression again.
    I hope that the inhabitants of the new towns will note the Treasury character of the Bill. Much of it seems to be an attempt not only to secure repayment of capital advanced by the Treasury, upon which interest is being paid, but also to make some sort of profit, a profit at the expense of the community living in the new towns. Be it remembered that people are living in the new towns, however comfortably they may be living there, at an expense much greater than the average. The difficulty is to find places in the new towns for the lower-paid people because it costs so much to live there. Be it remembered, also, that if the social purpose of the new towns is to be effected, it will not be effected by keeping those people out.
    7.30 p.m.
    I object to this provision, not only because I think that it ought to be ploughed back but also because a revenue surplus itself depends on what we spend before we get the surplus. With a provision of this sort, there would be constant pressure from the Treasury on the Minister and from the Minister on the Commission to accumulate a revenue surplus and to pay some of it back to the Treasury. I think that that is wrong in principle and in relation to the social purpose of the new towns.
    Question put, That "whether" stand part of the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 176.

    Division No. 154.]

    AYES

    [7.31 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Grant, Rt. Hon. w. (Woodside)

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Green, A.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Arbuthnot, John

    Grimond, J.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Neave, Airey

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Baldwin, Sir Archer

    Gurden, Harold

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

    Balniel, Lord

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Nicolson, N. (B'n'mth, E. & Chr'ch)

    Batsford, Brian

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Noble, Michael (Argyll)

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Nugent, Richard

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Page, R. G.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Partridge, E.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Peel, W. J.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hobson, John (Warwick& Leam'gt'n)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Holt, A. F.

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Body, R. F.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Horobin, Sir lan

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Pott, H. P.

    Braine, B. R.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Brewis, John

    Howard, John (Test)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

    Redmayne, M.

    Bryan, P.

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Carr, Robert

    Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsm'th. W.)

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Russell, R. S.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Kaberry, D.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Cooke, Robert

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Sharples, R. C.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Kirk, P. M.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Corfleld, F. V.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Speir, R. M.

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Leburn, W. G.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Cunningham, Knox

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Storey, S.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Longden, Gilbert

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Teeling, W.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Temple, John M.

    Drayson, G. B.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Duthie, Sir William

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Erroll, F. J.

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Fell, A.

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Finlay, Graeme

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

    Fisher, Nigel

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

    Wall, Patrick

    Forrest, G.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Maddan, Martin

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Gammans, Lady

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Webster, David

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Glover, D.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Godber, J. B.

    Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Goodhart, Philip

    Marshall, Douglas

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Mathew, R.

    Gower, H. R.

    Mawby, R. L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Mr. Whitelaw and

    Mr. J. E. B. Hill.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Boyd, T. C.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Benson, Sir George

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Beswick, Frank

    Brockway, A. F.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Blackburn, F.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Baird, J.

    Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

    Burke, W. A.

    Balfour, A.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    328

    329

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Janner, B.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Carmichael, J.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Champion, A. J.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Ross, William

    Chapman, W. D.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Royle, C.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Clunie, J.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Coldrick, W.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Ledger, R. J.

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

    Cronin, J. D.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Logan, D. G.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Deer, G.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Sparks, J. A.

    Delargy, H. J.

    McAlister, Mrs. Mary

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Diamond, John

    MacColl, J. E.

    Steele, T.

    Dodds, N. N.

    MacDermot, Niall

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    McInnes, J.

    Stonehouse, John

    Edelman, M.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Mahon, Simon

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Swingler, S. T.

    Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Symonds, J. B.

    Foot, D. M.

    Mason, Roy

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Forman, J. C.

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Messer, Sir F.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Thornton, E.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Mort, D. L.

    Timmons, J.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)

    Moss, R.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Hale, Leslie

    Moyle, A.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Weitzman, D.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Hannan, W.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Hastings, S.

    Owen, W. J.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.).

    Hayman, F. H.

    Paget, R. T.

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Parker, J.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Paton, John

    Willey, Frederick

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

    Pearson, A.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Holman, P.

    Peart, T. F.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Pentland, N.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Popplewell, E.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Probert, A. R.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Randall, H. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Rankin, John

    Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 3, line 29, at the end to insert:
    Provided that the total of sums paid by the Commission under this subsection shall not at any time exceed the total of liabilities transferred to the Commission from development corporations, being liabilities properly chargeable to capital account by a development corporation.
    I need not detain the House very long because some of the ground has already been covered. This is a further stage in what might be called the milking operation, the taking away from the Commission of some of the liquid assets which it has managed to accumulate. I accept what the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) said a few minutes ago, that the public who have subscribed the money to start the new towns should be paid back what they subscribe. That is common ground between us. They have certainly launched
    330
    the undertaking, fairly well protected by the security of the operation. Nevertheless they have put up the money, and before there is any distribution of surpluses certainly there should be repayment. That is provided for and accepted by our suggested proviso. The case for handing over more than the Exchequer has put into the new towns, however, is not quite as strong as that. That is why we seek to limit the withdrawals to the actual cost—the capital investment represented by the new towns—put up by the Exchequer. That is a principle which the Minister accepted in the case of the sewerage undertakings that we considered in Committee. If he could accept it in that case, there should not be much difficulty in his accepting it in this instance.
    A number of people are partners in the undertaking of a new town. There

    331
    is certainly the Exchequer, which put up the money. There are the corporation and the people who have built the town and been responsible for its development, and there are the people who have moved into the town and settled there and the industries that have come to the town. All these people have a right to be considered.
    It is an interesting point, although you would not want me to reflect on it at any length, Mr. Speaker, that the only people who get no benefit at all at present from the success of a new town are those who have put the work into building it up, namely, the staff and the corporation. They are thrown out without more than a formal word of thanks. They get nothing out of the success of the job they have done except the privilege of being unemployed. The Government are to get back the money which they invested in the new town, and that is quite right. The town itself will derive benefit from the increase in rateable value, the increase in the assets of the town and the general good will attached to the town as a pleasant and profitable place in which to live and to trade.
    The future of the new towns however, is not yet decided. That was stated in the previous debate and certainly on Second Reading. We do not know what the ultimate end of the new towns will be. This is a transitional stage that they should be under the Commission as a holding body, holding the assets of the new towns until the second stage of development is finished and they are stabilised with a stable population and their problems are those of a normal town. Then, we are all agreed, the new towns should be looked at again to see what is to be done with them.
    My plea is that before we reach that third stage we ought not to milk the Commission of the assets which it is holding. It may well be that a decision is taken that the new town should be handed over to the local authorities. It may be desirable that the profits of the new town should be used, as we were saying earlier, for the development of other new towns. These are all reasonable things to do with the assets.
    7.45 p.m.
    While we are in this state of uncertainty, however, when we are in what is purely a holding operation by the Commission
    332
    and not a final answer, we ought not to allow the assets of the new town to be appropriated by the Exchequer, because the Exchequer will have it both ways. It will have the security of the position of a debenture holder or mortgagee and it has the security of the land and buildings of the new town for getting the interest payable on the debt. At the same time, it wishes to claim the equity of the new town. That seems to be quite indefensible.
    Our proviso does not secure that the Exchequer would have to wait to be paid back. It would be entitled to be paid back, so there would be no question whatever about the new town continuing in debt. It would pay off its debt. Once it had done so, however, the Commission would be expected to hold the assets, or to use them or invest them in development—that is something which should be done—but to hold the surplus until a final decision is taken about what is to happen to the town.
    I have only one comment on the Minister's earlier remarks, because I anticipate that he might say the same thing again. It rather shocked me when he talked about the money being left in the bank and not used. That was an odd interpretation by a retired Financial Secretary to the Treasury of what happens to money which is placed on deposit in the bank. I would have thought that if there were assets, there was no earthly reason, if they were not wanted, why they should not be used or invested and why either the bank or somebody else should not use them or see that they were put to full use. The benefit from that, however, would accrue to the assets of the Commission and not to the Exchequer.
    The broad principle is not substantially different from that of the other Amendments which we have just considered, but I regard this as a reasonable proposal which, I hope, the Minister will accept.
    Mr. Mitchison: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The principle that we are debating on the Amendment is the same as on the previous one, but this one deals with payments on capital account and the other dealt with payments of revenue surpluses. When the

    333
    1946 Act was enacted, it was laid down that the Exchequer—that is, the taxpayers as a whole—should be, as it were, the residuary legatee of the development corporations. I said in Standing Committee on this Bill that, in the view of the Government, here again the Exchequer—the general body of taxpayers—should be the residuary legatee of the Commission for the new towns.
    The purpose of the Amendment is to alter that and to ensure that the people living in the new towns themselves will be the residuary legatee and that if there are capital surpluses beyond a certain figure they are not to be repaid to the Exchequer. If they are not, in words to which the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) objects, to lie idle—that is, to remain on deposit in the bank—presumably he contemplates that they should be ploughed back into the new towns. That appears to me to be as unacceptable as the previous Amendment.
    We are dealing here with a vast undertaking that will have been financed by nearly £400 million advanced by the taxpayers all over the country. It cannot be denied that that is public money. The upshot of the Amendment would be that should things go well and should the financial outcome be so satisfactory as to produce an ultimate surplus on capital account exceeding the capital debt which the Commission takes over, the whole of that excess capital surplus should be available for putting back into the new towns. The hon. Member for Widnes argued that the Treasury, that is to say, the taxpayers, were trying to have it both ways. They were trying to be both debenture holders and equity shareholders. It is a queer sort of debenture because the debenture holder has some right of foreclosing, and what use it would be for the Exchequer to foreclose on the new towns if they were not profitable enough to repay the capital advances, I do not know.
    The fact is that considerable risk is being taken with this money. We all hope that the risk will turn out well and that for the loan period of 60 years the financial outturn of the whole undertaking will be sufficiently favourable to ensure that all the obligations are met. We cannot be certain of that. Frankly, I believe that the Exchequer, that is to
    334
    say the taxpayers as a whole, need to be looked at just as much in the position of equity shareholders as anything else. They are taking a risk on this; there is no doubt of it.
    What the Opposition is saying is that although the taxpayers must take the risk they are not to have any of the surpluses if, in fact, things turn out well. The whole of the surplus is to accrue to those living in the new towns. As I have pointed out one of the powers and responsibilities of the Commission is to have regard to the convenience and welfare of the people living in the new towns and it has powers to make certain payments for amenities and the like and a general power of good administration. There is not the slightest chance that the interest of the people in the new towns will be overlooked.
    Mr. MacColl: It is common ground that while the Commission is operating it can plough back money into the new towns. I am suggesting that until the final decision is taken about the future of the new towns as a whole the Commission should be regarded as holding the assets and the Exchequer ought not to get back more than it has put in until that final decision is taken, whichever way that decision may go in the future, which none of us know.
    Mr. Brooke: That is so. This is a highly hypothetical Amendment, because it seems to me that it will be quite impossible for the limit contained in this Amendment to be reached within the kind of period which I gather the hon. Gentleman has in mind as the period which ought to elapse before Parliament has another look at the matter and decides what the ultimate future of the towns should be.
    I have been studying the Amendment itself, and I thought from reading the Amendment that it was concerned that the taxpayers as a whole should never make a profit out of the new towns. I accept that the hon. Gentleman has put down the Amendment to make sure that the capital surpluses are not disposed of to the Exchequer prematurely. Frankly, I cannot see that on all the forecasts that a reasonable man could make there could be any possibility of these great repayments being made so rapidly as that.

    335
    I must look at the Amendment as it stands, and it certainly would provide that as we got to the end of the period of 60 years advances after the towns had been going on for a long time, this Amendment would preclude the taxpayers as a whole from receiving any payment beyond a certain figure and any excess beyond that would have to be ploughed back to the new towns. I am sure that the Government take a different view of this. It is not only the welfare and happiness of the people in the new towns that are at stake, but this very large amount of money which has been put up by the country as a whole. We cannot have regard to one of these and not to the other. We must provide that if the Commission has been administering its property and its assets in a proper way and with due regard to the good of the towns themselves, and if in the end an aggregate capital surplus is thrown up which is greater than the aggregate debt the Commission has taken over, at any rate, it must be for consideration whether some of that income should not accrue to the taxpayers as a whole rather than it should all go into the new towns.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Having listened to the Minister, I thought that I was unduly generous to him on an earlier occasion when I said that I objected to his allowing his past history as Financial Secretary to the Treasury to overcome his present position as Minister of Housing and Local Government. I find now that it is not as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that he is addressing the House. He appears to be taking up the attitude of some sort of Hugh Fraser or Mr. Clore towards the new towns. He is enunciating not a Governmental doctrine, not even a Treasury doctrine towards the new towns, but a purely capitalist, private enterprise doctrine.
    The right hon. Gentleman is saying that, because the community desires to make this very spectacular and, no doubt, in some ways, speculative investment in these great experiments in town planning, the community should not be satisfied with merely getting its money back with a normal rate of interest but in addition should expect to get some surplus provided out of the operation. He is treating the taxpayers of the country in a
    336
    way which I do not think they expect to be treated—as private shareholders in the new towns, who expect to have a sort of annual dividend declared on the surpluses in due course. I think that is a most unreasonable way in which to look at it.
    It is not, incidentally, the way in which the Government look at their financial operations in many other respects. The Treasury has just given £50 million to Colvilles steel undertaking in Scotland. It is no doubt a risky and speculative national investment, but I am sure that it is a necessary one. In due course the taxpayer will get the £50 million back, with the normal market rate of interest—indeed, a somewhat lower rate of interest—but there is no suggestion that for years after that any further surplus as a result of this investment by the taxpayers should come back to the taxpayers.
    Then there is £100 million to be invested in the Cunard liners, again by the taxpayers. The taxpayers will get the £100 million back with interest in due course, but there is no suggestion that any further surplus of profits earned by these great Cunarders should come back to the taxpayers. I should have thought that in those cases the taxpayers had a legitimate right to expect some share in the profits, because they are commercial concerns.
    Here we have the taxpayer voluntarily at the elections choosing to make an investment in a great social experiment, and I am sure he does not expect this national social investment to be treated on the commercial, capitalist lines that the Minister is following. I am sure that the ordinary taxpayer, provided his interests are safeguarded and the investment is returned with normal interest, is prepared to say that the surplus earned in future years by the efforts, energy and enterprise of people in the new towns, should go back to the new towns to make them a greater success as a social experiment. If our Amendments have done nothing else, they have revealed a fundamental cleavage of philosophy in tackling the financial problems of the new towns. One of the platitudes uttered in the House is that both sides are in favour of new towns, but this proposal of the Government makes it clear that the approach to new towns is quite different on the Tory

    337
    side from what it is on this side. The Government and the Minister are applying to the new towns private enterprise profit-making considerations which I am sure even Conservative voters would not support.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Mitchison Mr. Mitchison rose—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The hon. and learned Member has exhausted his right to speak in seconding the Amendment.
    Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. I thought that that was not the case in formally seconding an Amendment. I notice that one of my hon. Friends was allowed to address the House after formally seconding a previous Amendment.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The rule is that in seconding an Amendment one exhausts one's right to speak.
    Mr. Mitchison: In those circumstances, I have only to ask the leave of the House to make a short speech. It would have been a short one anyhow.
    I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) has said. It is quite impossible to reconcile the Government's attitude towards these advances with their attitude towards advances to commercial undertakings. This shows the Tory Party for what it really is. Not only is this impossible to reconcile, but so is something else. The right hon. Gentleman accepted in Committee an Amendment on exactly these lines in relation to a much smaller matter of sewerage undertakings. He accepted an Amendment to the effect that the total repaid should not exceed the total advanced. This is exactly the same point, and what the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to do in a small case he is not prepared to do in a large one.
    This is indeed a monstrous Treasury Bill. At the end of the time, the Government want to take back not only the money which they put up for a public purpose but also the interest on that money and, in addition, anything more that they can get, and at whose expense? They will get it at the expense of the local authorities which, we believe, will finally take over these new towns. It is perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman has persistently refused to repeat
    338
    the pledges given by the Tory Party when we on this side of the House were in power and we passed Section 15 of the New Towns Act, 1946, intending by that Section to give an undertaking that the new towns should go back to the local authorities.
    If they do not go back to the local authorities, to whom will they go? Will the right hon. Gentleman sell the lot to some Mr. Clore or some Mr. Hugh Fraser in future? The answer, of course, is that they must go back to the local authorities. They cannot go back to anybody else, unless we are to have in this country some form of capitalist oligarchy so far removed from Parliamentary democracy that even the Tory Party would not be prepared to face it. What will happen is that the Treasury will take not only the rights of debenture holders but also those of shareholders too, and the people from whom the Treasury will take those rights are the people who are living in the new towns. I trust that the people in the new towns will take good account of the Tory Party's attitude towards them and their future.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) still has sinister suspicions. There is no question of the Commission mismanaging these assets and ruining local authorities.
    Mr. Mitchison: I really never suggested anything of the sort, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. The point is that the terms on which these new towns must be handed over to somebody—and I say to the local authorities—will have to be settled in future, and it is to those terms that this question is relevant.
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. and learned Member appears to think that by the use of this provision in the Bill some sinister action is planned against the local authorities. There is nothing of the kind in it at all. As I indicated before, we are simply saying that the taxpayers as a whole, rather than the people living in the new towns alone, must be the residuary legatees of the Commission. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) must know that a direct comparison cannot be established between an advance to a company which will form but a small part of its liabilities and

    339
    these advances from the Treasury to development corporations, and now to the Commission, which will be the whole of the liabilities. That is why I said that we must think of the Treasury in terms of the shareholder carrying the risk as well as the debenture holder.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that in the case of Colvilles the taxpayers' capital is about two-thirds of the total sums provided by private shareholders who will ultimately share the profits and who are the minority shareholders.
    Mr. Brooke: Whatever happens in the new towns only one body has made the advances and provided the whole of the capital, and that is the Exchequer. Therefore, the Exchequer carries a
    special risk in these cases. I have no more to say than that I am not speaking now as Financial Secretary to the Treasury but as Minister of Housing and Local Government with the interests of the new towns in my mind the whole of the time. I say that the new towns could not justify themselves to the public as a whole if they were to disregard their obligations to the taxpayers as a whole, and we could not have a situation arising in which it was impossible to do anything with the eventual capital surplus except put it back into the new towns. The taxpayers as a whole must be the residuary legatees.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 206.

    Division No. 155.]

    AYES

    [8.8 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Hale, Leslie

    Moyle, A.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hannan, W.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Hastings, S.

    Owen, W. J.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Hayman, F. H.

    Paget, R. T.

    Bence, C. R- (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Parker, J.

    Benson, Sir George

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

    Paton, John

    Blackburn, F.

    Holman, P.

    Pearson, A.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Peart, T. F.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Pentland, N.

    Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Popplewell, E.

    Boyd, T. C.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Randall, H. E.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Rankin, John

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Burke, W. A.

    Janner, B.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

    Ross, William

    Carmichael, J.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Royle, C.

    Champion, A. J.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Chetwynd, C. R.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Clunie, J.

    Kenyon, C.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Coldrick, W.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Cronin, J. D.

    Ledger, R. J.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Snow, J. W.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Deer, G.

    Logan, D. G.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Diamond, John

    McAlister, Mrs. Mary

    Steele, T.

    Dodds, N. N.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    MacDermot, Niall

    Stonehouse, John

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    McInnes, J.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Swingler, S. T.

    Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)

    Mahon, Simon

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Fitrh, A. E. (Wigan)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Symonds, J. B.

    Fletcher, Eric

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Foot, D. M.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Forman, J. C.

    Mason, Roy

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Thornton, E.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Timmons, J.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Mort, D. L.

    Usborne, H. C.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)

    Moss, R.

    Viant, S. P.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Watkins, T. E.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Weltzman, D.

    Willey, Frederick

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Holmes

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.(Nantwich)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Aitken, W. T.

    Green, A.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Grimond, J.

    Neave, Alrey

    Arbuthnot, John

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Noble, Michael (Argyll)

    Atkins, H. E.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Nugent, Richard

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Gurden, Harold

    O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Baldwin, Sir Archer

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Balniel, Lord

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Page, R. G.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Batsford, Brian

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Partridge, E.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Peel, W. J.

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Pitman, I. J.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Holt, A. F.

    Pott, H. P.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Price, David (Eastlelgh)

    Body, R. F.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Howard, John (Test)

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Brewis, John

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Redmayne, M.

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Bryan, P.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (SaffronWalden)

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Russell, R. s.

    Carr, Robert

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Sharples, R. C.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Kirk, P. M.

    Shepherd, William

    Cooke, Robert

    Lancaster, Col, C. G.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Leburn, W. G.

    Speir, R. M.

    Corfield, F. V.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Cunningham, Knox

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Storey, S.

    Dance, J. C. C.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Teeling, W.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Maodonald, Sir Peter

    Temple, John M.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Thorneycroft, Ht. Hon. P.

    Duthie, Sir William

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Elliott, R. W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Erroll, F. J.

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Fell, A.

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Finlay, Graeme

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. P.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Maddan, Martin

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Forrest, G.

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Wall, Patrick

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hon. Sir R.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Gammans, Lady

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Webster, David

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Whitelaw, W. S. I.

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Glover, D.

    Marshall, Douglas

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Godber, J. B.

    Mathew, R.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Goodhart, Philip

    Mawby, R. L.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Gower, H. R.

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Colonel J. H. Harrison and

    Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Mr. Chichester-Clark.

    Clause 8.—(SUPPLEMENTARY.)
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, in page 11, line 14, to leave out from the beginning to "(which", and to insert:
    "Section one hundred and ninety-two of the Highways Act, 1959".
    This is a purely drafting Amendment consequential on the repeal of the New Streets Act, 1951, by the enactment of the Highways Act, 1959.
    Amendment agreed to.

  First Schedule.—(CONSTITUTION ETC. OF COMMISSION FOR THE NEW TOWNS.)
  Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 14, line 7, at the end to insert:
  Provided that at least one-half in number of those members shall be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the councils of any counties and county districts comprising a substantial part of the area of any new town and from among persons having experience of local government or the administration of new towns.
  In the First Schedule we come to what must commonly be accepted as an important question, for whatever different views we may have about the whole policy of the Bill—as we have, for there is no question about our disagreement with at any rate Part I of the Bill—we have had that discussion and have now reached the stage where it is agreed by the House that the Commission shall be established. I am certain, however, that everybody on both sides of the House must recognise that there is a real danger of the Commission becoming a body remote from the problems of the new towns.
  The new town is the home of people. It is the place of work, the centre of industries. It means a tremendous lot to the people who live and work in the place. By its very character the Commission is removed from each new town. It is the object of the Bill that to some extent the Commission should be slightly removed from day-to-day contact. That may be a bad thing. I think it is, but I am not arguing the point at the moment.
  I am arguing that it is most important to ensure that, once the Commission is set up, it should be a body which is recognised as knowing something about each individual town, understanding its problems, and understanding particularly the problems of the various people concerned
  344
  in its administration. Therefore, we suggest—and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that it is a constructive suggestion, and in no sense an attempt to wreck the Commission—that half of the members should be people brought in from outside who have no particular local contacts. The Minister is free to pick them from wherever he likes.
  The other half should be people whom the Minister appoints after he has consulted a variety of bodies. He should first consult the county council, because what the Commission does very much affects its work. The Commission's management, manipulation and sale of land, its development of industry and so on create problems in the country, problems in education, welfare, even fire prevention, and the manifold services in which the county is involved. One is sometimes a little inclined to forget the interest which county councils have in new towns. One tends to think very much in terms of the county district of the area, but the county council has a very great interest in what happens in new towns and has some very difficult problems of competing priorities to settle.
  We suggest that the consultations should embrace the county councils and also the county district councils, normally boroughs or urban districts. We say that the council concerned should cover a substantial part of the area, because there are some places where the area of the new town is not co-terminus with the area of the county district, which is probably unfortunate, but it is a fact. One must be reasonable and say that the county district which has a substantial say in the new town should be consulted.
  Therefore, the first duty upon the Minister is to have these consultations. That does not mean nomination in the sense that he must accept any person suggested to him by one of the councils. It means that he must get from the councils their suggestions.
  The second duty that the Minister has is to appoint members from among persons having experience of local government or the administration of new towns. I am certain that the Minister intends—he has said so—to draw on the resources of the corporations very much in choosing the people to serve on the Commission. He ought also to drawn upon people

  345
  who have experience of local government, because the local government side will be developing in the new towns. As the new towns mature, the part played by local government will increase and it will become more and more important that there should be on the Commission persons who look at the problems from the local government point of view.
  I should like to make a historical contribution based on my experience at Hemel Hempstead. What struck me very much in that exceedingly happy corporation, of which I was for a short time a member, was that when we had differences of opinion, as we naturally did from time to time, they were never based on differences of party view. They were nearly always differences between members of the board who had local government experience, whether they were Conservatives or Socialists, and members of the board who had had business experience. It was fascinating to see how the different points of view had to be brought together and blended before a final decision was reached. Therefore, I believe that it is very important indeed that the Commission should have members with both types of experience.
  I do not suppose there is much argument about that and I imagine that the Minister would accept that without very much debate, but it is important that it should be made clear in the proviso that this duty exists. One of the most disquieting things about the Commission as it appears at present is that there is no indication of the kind of person who will be appointed. This is, after all, a very important matter for the new towns. They will be handed over to the Commission, which will be a State body. We are not at the moment discussing the working of the local management committees; that will come later. What we are concerned about is the Commission, which is bound to be a centralised State body. We ought to know, and Parliament ought to make clear, the kind of people who will be appointed. It ought not to be left completely at large.
  The danger is that the Commission will become a body which is not regarded by the new towns as having knowledge and understanding of and sympathy with their problems. After all, it will deal with the lives of the people who live in the towns, and its
  346
  decisions will have tremendous influence on the happiness and prosperity of the town. Therefore, it is reasonable that a substantial part of the Commission should be chosen after consultation with the elected bodies in the new towns and that it should consist of people who have special knowledge of the problems of new towns and the general problems of local government, which are not necessarily those of the new towns. There are problems to which an important contribution may be made by a member of the Commission who has had experience outside the new towns, possibly of some other type of development, such as big housing estates, but may not have lived in a new town. We want to be sure that at least half the members of the Commission are persons who will be recognised by the local inhabitants as having a special knowledge and experience of their problems.
  There is a sop to the Minister. He has laid emphasis on keeping the Commission removed from the day-to-day difficulties of the new towns, which I think is a rather bad idea. However, the Minister can, if he wishes, appoint the other half of the members directly.
  We think that our proposal makes a valuable contribution to the Bill because it will make clear to the persons concerned how the Commission is to be constituted. It will be a guarantee to the inhabitants that some respect will be paid to local democracy. That will make it easier for them to accept the Commission. Therefore, the Government ought to welcome and accept our proposal.
  Mr. Gibson: I beg to second the Amendment.
  We seek to ensure that the Commission shall be a body whose members have not only financial experience but experience of local government and housing on a large scale. During our discussions in Committee, the Minister said:
  "It is not simply to be a financial operator, not by any means. It has to consider every aspect—social, industrial, everything concerned with the property for which for the time being it will be responsible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 14th May, 1959; c 623.]
  8.30 p.m.
  With that definition of the general functions in mind, I should have thought that it would be essential for the Minister

  347
  to agree to have on the Commission people with local experience of the running of new towns, people with local government experience, people with trade union experience and people with cooperative experience, some of which is very large business in these days. Unless the Minister does that, while the Commission may theoretically depend on the reports which it receives from the local committees which, apparently, it will have in each of the new town areas to carry out certain functions—which I confess are not very clear to me at the moment—it will be a remote distant body.
  If we are not to lose the wonderful impetus which the new town idea has created in this country, we must have on the Commission the kind of men and women referred to in the Amendment. Incidentally, there are many good men and women who have put years of work into the building up of these new towns. As some of us saw only a few weeks ago, they have done it very successfully.
  It would be a pity to lose the value of the experience and knowledge which these men and women have acquired not only of the actual job of building a new town from scratch but of the problems of local government administration, and, what is equally important in these new towns, the problem of housing management.
  It is gradually being accepted that the management of a housing estate is a skilled job. Unless the Commission has on it somebody who is not only skilled but enthusiastic about housing management, it will lose a great deal of the value which it otherwise might have, much as I dislike the idea of a Commission such as the Bill lays down.
  We are saddled with the Bill and we want to make it as effective as we can. It may turn out all right. We might have a Minister who would have sense enough to appoint among the fifteen members people with local government experience and with co-operative, trade union and housing management experience in new towns. We are, however, not sure, and from the experience that some of us have had since 1945 of the appointment of people to both national and local committees with State responsibilities, one gets a bit doubtful.
  I want us, if we can, to make sure that when the Commission is appointed it will
  348
  consist of people such as our Amendment envisages who have much local government and administrative experience in new towns. Unless we do that, we run the risk of the Commission being a purely financial organisation. I must confess that that is what most of us thought it was meant to be. It is true that it will not have large surpluses to handle for a few years, but as more new towns are completed surpluses running into many millions of pounds will become available.
  We would like to see a great deal of the surplus money being used to improve the amenities and comforts of the new towns, but we have lost on that. We do not want to see the scheme run so that the only consideration which the Commission running the show from London has is a financial one. We are alarmed at the idea that one of the chief functions of the Commission is to increase the value of the land and not to provide good comfortable homes in perfect surroundings with work for people who badly need it. I hope that the Government will be a little more sympathetic about the composition of the Commission than they were in Committee.
  The Minister admitted the necessity for at least half the Commission consisting of people who have proved themselves to have knowledge of local government, of the management of new towns, of the varied problems which housing management throws up in any case and of the problems which the political management of a town, whether it be large or small, inevitably throws up.
  The new towns will become larger than was envisaged when they were started. The present tendency in new towns seems to be for them to have more children than there are in the normal towns, so there will be a big increase in population bringing greater problems. These cannot be dealt with successfully by a far away, remote Commission that does not know from personal experience the problems thrown up by these towns and which will only be concerned with the financial aspects of the matter.
  I urge the Minister to be a little more forthcoming and to agree that these assets of at least £300 million to £400 million shall be managed by people of

  349
  knowledge and experience of the problems of large towns and housing estates. New towns can thus become the lovely pulsating centres of population that we all want to see.
  Mr. Shinwell: The Minister of Housing and Local Government is either having something to eat or is endeavouring to escape our deliberations. Desirous of being generous, I suspect that the reason for his absence is the former. No one will begrudge the right hon. Gentleman some nourishment, particularly after the vicious attacks that we have made on him, which so far have elicited no satisfactory response.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has heard that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has returned to the Chamber.
  Mr. Shinwell: I at once deny the soft impeachment.
  I dislike this conception of a Commission and rejected it absolutely and emphatically. However, the House decided against us—it was a mistake—and we cannot go over the ground again. That is unfortunate, because quite a number of new arguments have occurred to me in support of our original proposals. I will keep them in cold storage for use on a future occasion. We must accept the Commission for what it is worth.
  If we have to accept the Commission, let us get one that is satisfactory, intelligent and human. Oh, that is very important. There is a great danger that we may have a Commission consisting of lawyers, or financiers, who will sit in a quasi-judicial capacity, or will exercise financial knowledge, in order to keep a Light rein on the activities of the local committees that are to be set up. There is a very valid reason for the acceptance of the proposal in the Amendment that half the number of the proposed Commission should consist of persons with local-authority knowledge and capable of administering what, after all, is a local authority of a grandiose character.
  There is a very valid reason for this. It is that the Commission responsible for the administration and general activities associated with the new towns
  350
  under this Bill must seek the cooperation of the local authorities. Without the co-operation of the local authorities there is very great danger of serious trouble ensuing. It may well be that the kind of Commission that is envisaged by the Minister, with his somewhat peculiar ideas on these matters and his Tory idiosyncracies with which we are familiar, may appoint a Commission which will disregard the views of local authorities unless they happen to be Tory local authorities. That would be a horse of a different colour. and what a horse!
  If there is one reason—there are several, of course—why the Minister should accept this proposition it is that co-operation is an essential sine qua non of effective co-operation and administration of the new towns. I should like to commend the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). I say that in no condescending fashion. I commend his speech on this subject in contrast to the speeches we have heard from the Front Bench opposite. Comparisons, as we know, are odious.
  When he was making the proposition on this subject, my hon. Friend said that we shall have to deal with committees later, but unfortunately we cannot as there is no Amendment on the Notice Paper dealing with committees. Why that is so I do not know. Perhaps it has been ruled out for some reason. Perhaps it is out of order, or perhaps my colleagues in the Standing Committee thought it inadvisable to press for it. I cannot say, but the committees are very important and they are to be appointed by the Commission with the approval of the Minister. What the Commission will recommend will be accepted by the Minister—that is, in the personnel of the local committees—but if on the main Commission there are people who are not acquainted with the activities of local authorities, who are not persona grata with local authorities and are unaware of the desires of local authorities, the persons appointed to these local committees will be those who are very likely to come into conflict with the local authorities of the area.
  I have had some controversy with the Minister on an aspect of this subject. As hon. Members are aware, I represent a constituency in which there is the town

  351
  of Peterlee. As I said earlier it is a very fine town. It could be better if we had the right amenities and if the Minister were a little more forthcoming, but we cannot help that. We have to put up with this Minister so long as this Government lasts. The sooner we get rid of him the better. I say that with no offence at all. That is the desire of many of us. I should not be surprised to find that it is the desire of some on the benches opposite. Very often we are anxious to put a knife into each other's backs. That is not peculiar even to the Tory Party.
  8.45 p.m.
  I have had some trouble with the Minister. I understood from what the Minister said on Second Reading that he was anxious to enter into consultation with local authorities about the personnel on these committees and on the Commission itself. It is therefore surprising to observe his two recent appointments on the Peterlee Development Board, because they are from outside the area. He asked for the views of the Easington Rural District Council, which is the second largest rural district council in the country. The council informed him that it would like the local authority to be associated in some way with the new town corporation. Was that too much to ask? After all, the local authority is responsible for sewerage, for the collection of rates, for the collection of dustbins and for a variety of other activities associated with local government. In effect it is the democratic handmaiden of the new town. That is recognised by the Minister.
  Having heard what the council said about it one would have expected him to say, "What you say is right. I will appoint two persons to the development corporation who are in some way associated with the local authority or who are at any rate recognised by the local authority as desirable nominees." He said nothing of the sort, and I want the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me why. I insist on an answer. Why not? I represent the constituency. That is why I am here. Ministers must offer us explanations of their conduct. Why has the Minister rejected the local authority's advice? We ought to know.
  The Minister is pitchforking into the new town corporation a lady from Dar-
  352
  lington, which is quite a pleasant town, but we have good people in our own area, highly intelligent people. In addition, he is importing another businessman from Newcastle. We have businessmen in our community.
  Why must he do that sort of thing? Why is he playing ducks and drakes with us in this fashion? We do not intend to stand for that. Because of his conduct in this matter I am afraid that he will do much the same when appointing the Commission and that the Commission may do precisely the same when it carries out its duty of appointing the local committee. If that is democracy, it is not the kind of democracy in which I believe.
  We must start with first things first. We must get the Commission right. The personnel of the Commission, the calibre of the members and the qualifications of the members of the Commission, are equally important with the question of finance associated with the activities of new towns. We can have the utmost correctness in the financial information in respect of the new towns, we can have excellent plans and blue-prints, but unless we have the right personnel, with the right ideas about their responsibilities and activities, all the financial finesse and all the fine blue-prints will come to very little. I think that I have the House with me on that at any rate.
  It is therefore very important to have the right people. The first thing must be to get the right kind of Commission, and we shall not do that unless it is associated directly with people connected with the local authority. If that is obtained, we need not bother so much about what will happen in regard to the Committees. If the right people are appointed to the Commission, the right people will be appointed to the Committees. Then there will be effective co-operation between the Commission, the Committees and local authorities, and there will be a chance of this concept working out well. I hope that we shall get that.
  I do not want to threaten the Minister, but undoubtedly there is a good deal of power in the hands of the Opposition. A good deal of power is vested in Members of Parliament. They are in touch with local authorities. I do not speak for myself only, but for Members of

  353
  Parliament generally. They have some influence with local authorities and people in the localities. We can make things difficult for the corporations.
  What has been the position in connection with the Peterlee Corporation? I have had to come to its assistance many times. Many times I have had to make representations to the Ministry in a concealed fashion. Many times I have had to work behind the scenes, as has the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater). I do not know about my other hon. Friends who represent new towns, but I know what my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield and I have had to do.
  Local authorities are our friends. There is an overwhelming Labour majority on my own local authority. If we sought to influence a local authority in the sphere of non-co-operation with a development corporation, that would have a detrimental effect, to say the very least, on the activities of that body and would render no service to the community or the local authority. We do not want that to happen, but the Minister, by his activities, is forcing us in the direction of non-co-operation. I do not know what the Easington Rural District Council may do. In view of the Minister's attitude, the council might say, "To blazes with the corporation. It can run its own affairs." The council can use better language than that. If it cannot, I can supplement it, if necessary. That is a possibility. It is no idle talk. I know what people are saying. We have had lots of trouble at Peterlee. The Parliamentary Secretary knows what is happening at South Hetton, Haswell, Thornley and Wheatley Hill, where the people have slogans all over the place saying, "Down with Peterlee. Have nothing to do with Peterlee". The slogans warn the local Member of Parliament that his majority might be reduced if he does not take it up with the Minister. I see the notices when I go round the district. The idea of having my majority reduced fills me with apprehension. That is the sort of thing which is happening in the constituency, and it is not idle talk.
  Therefore, I beg the Minister to pay some attention to these matters and to realise that co-operation between local authorities and the Commission and its committees is essential. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can do something to
  354
  invoke it and, having invoked it, to maintain it by the correct machinery, he is in for a great deal of trouble.
  Mr. Ede: I apologise to non-Privy Councillors for being the second Privy Councillor in succession to speak. I associate myself wholeheartedly with the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). In the first two years of this century I devoted a great deal of time to the study of a book by Ebenezer Howard entitled Cities of Tomorrow, which was the beginning of the garden city idea and the idea of the new town to be designed from the beginning to provide an adequate home, both for the worker and the family; where people could carry on their ordinary avocations in close proximity to their homes.
  In those far-off days I occasionally lectured on the advantages of this proposal. Of course, we were supposed to be complete visionaries—nothing would ever come like this. At that time one or two enlightened industrialists, such as the Cadbury's, and W. H. Lever at Port Sunlight, were actually carrying out our ideas to some extent, although the chief disadvantage of what they did was that they were really promoting one new industry per new town, which did not give much varied opportunity to the diverse skills that might be expected to be found in such an area.
  I regret that this nation-wide Commission is to be appointed. As far as I can see from the discretion and the powers given to it, it will have far too great an influence over the individual new towns which come within its purview. I could have hoped that the ideas with which we started would remain; that each of these garden cities or new towns would have an individuality of its own, with a sense of its own corporate, individual existence, and managed under our usual local government orders.
  It is highly to be desired that, as soon as possible, these new towns, no matter what their size, should not be under a national Commission. After all, the history of the last 130 years from 1834 is not one that makes one favourable to the idea of national commissions managing great social experiments of this kind—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but this Amendment is about the composition of the Commission, and nothing else. He is dealing with rather wider issues.
  Mr. Ede: I accept your suggestion that I may be going into rather too great detail, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I am trying to build up the case for what is left of that idea in this Amendment. We are now trying to save something from what I regard as the wreckage of our hopes. I want the Commission to be as representative as possible of the people who will be living under its control. My wish would be that consultation should take place with the county and county district councils which have the new towns within their areas, and that, in addition, the Minister should appoint a number of people who have intimate knowledge of local government affairs and, in particular, of the local government problems that confront the new areas that have been developed under the Act.
  I was very glad to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) had to say about the importance of consulting the county councils—which, in these days, are responsible for education and educational development for all sections of the community in a new town—so that there shall be appropriate opportunities for the further education of people who have left school and are becoming identified as workers with particular skilled industry, who ought to receive the encouragement and assistance that they can get from an enlightened policy of further education.
  9.0 p.m.
  I hope there will be frequent consultations between this Commission and the county councils with a view to providing appropriate further education institutes in these areas. It will be a very great pity if the ideas with which these areas are developed do not take into account fully the aspirations of the people who are going to live in them. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington said, there is no Amendment dealing with committees, but one must hope that the Minister, in his appointments to the Commission, will have regard to the aspirations in this Amendment to encourage the Commission, when it
  356
  appoints the committees, to carry out the same ideas that have been advocated by my right hon. Friend and myself.
  The position of the new towns in the future development of England will, I hope, influence the housing estates of the big cities. One can already see signs that this is happening, and I sincerely hope that this Amendment will be accepted—if not in the words in which it is phrased, at least in the same spirit—by the Minister when he deals with the appointment of this Commission, whose appointment I am bound to say I view with great disappointment. I hope however, that the Minister will make the best of what he has decided shall be a bad job.
  Mr. Slater: I am delighted to think that my right hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and for South Shields (Mr. Ede) have been able to express their views on how the Commission should be set up and from where appointments should come. We all know that as the development corporations have been set up in the past, unity of purpose has not been the prime object in the development of the new towns.
  It is true to say, as I reminded the Minister in the Standing Committee, that we had a great amount of disunity in Durham county when people were being appointed to the new town corporations. These appointments had no affinity whatsoever with the county, nor even with local government administration. I was surprised to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington say that when a new appointment to the Peterlee Corporation was proposed the person concerned came from Darlington. On my corporation there are two persons who reside in the Darlington borough area. Durham County Council, as well as the Easington rural area, had reason to object at the time when these corporations were set up, in view of their composition.
  I am convinced that if we are to have that progress which is desirable and in the interests of the people resident in the new towns, and if the new towns are to be provided in the interests of the nation, the people to serve on such a Commission should have experience of local government administration. I would remind the House that the excuse of the Minister in turning down the Amendments in the

  357
  Standing Committee was that if these appointments were made in the manner in which we think they ought to be made, these people would not know where their first loyalty really lay. That is a form of argument which does not carry very much weight. They are the people who have had local government experience.
  I cannot understand why the Minister should not accept the argument which has been put time and time again about the kind of representation there should be on the Commission which is to be set up. Once the Bill becomes an Act, our people in the new towns and the county administrative areas will have little to say because they will not have the power or opportunity to express their views. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept the application which has been made and take into consideration the views which have been expressed by my right hon. Friends who have had greater experience in these matters than many of us present in the Chamber now.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: I join with my hon. and right hon. Friends in urging the Minister to accept the pleas which have been made to him. I urge him this time with, I hope, some possibility of success. It is quite clear that, in the Minister's own interests, if he wishes the Bill to succeed, he must accept the idea which is behind the Amendment. If he goes ahead and appoints the sort of Commission which has been conjured up to us by some of the arguments we have had from the Front Bench today, the working of the Bill will be hopelessly wrecked.
  We regard it as a bad Bill. We tried, as best we could, to amend it, and we have not succeeded to any great extent. But, if it is to work at all, it will be absolutely vital that the Commission itself should be very strongly representative of the local authority people in the areas in which the new towns are situated. If the Commission is dominated by the kind of chartered accountants which the Minister seemed to have in mind when he was discussing some of the financial implications of the Bill, or if it is dominated by representatives of the Tory Institute of Directors and that kind of person, it will be impossible for the new towns to have any sort of progressive development.
  358
  The Minister really must recognise that his experience with the development corporations and the local authorities around them has not been particularly happy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater) have given instances. Relations between the Harlow Development Corporation and the local authority there have been a good deal worse than they need have been simply because the Minister has steadfastly refused to appoint to that development corporation people from the local authorities. Various people can now put up names to the Minister from which he can select members of the development corporation. As far as I know, he has, so far, completely refused to appoint to that development corporation anybody who comes from the local authority which democratically administers exactly the same area as the development corporation itself. The Bill will not work unless there is adequate local authority representation on the Commission.
  The Amendment is extremely cautiously and moderately worded. It does not ask that local authorities should send their own people to the Commission. It does not even ask that the Minister should appoint people suggested by the local authorities. It merely asks that the Minister shall select from people who have local authority experience. More than that, it allows the Minister to make up his half of the Commission not only from people who have local authority experience but from people who have experience of serving on the existing new town development corporations. It is a moderately worded Amendment.
  If the Minister wants his own Bill to succeed, he must ensure that, in making up his Commission, at least half of it is composed of people who have genuine roots in the local communities, from people who live in the new towns. If the right atmosphere of confidence is to be built up between people living in the new towns and those responsible for administering new towns, either at the level of local committees or at the level of the Commission, this must be done. It has been difficult enough to operate the present development corporation system smoothly. It will be infinitely more

  359
  difficult with this remote Whitehall Commission. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is willing to make sure that the composition of the Commission is democratically representative, he will run into a very great deal of trouble.
  Mr. Bevins: We have been privileged to hear a number of very interesting speeches, including two from members of the Privy Council, one of whom was slightly frustrated by you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) ranged, I thought, fairly widely, and in the course of what he had to say—a great deal of it, so far as I could judge, not connected with the Amendment—he asked my right hon. Friend, in fact, demanded to know of my right hon. Friend, an answer to a question which, I am sure, with great respect to him, is in no way connected with the Amendment.
  Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Did you detect that I was out of order while you were in the Chair?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did detect certain digressions, but I allowed the right hon. Gentleman a certain amount of latitude.
  Mr. Shinwell: I should like a simple, direct, and fair answer to this question: was I out of order while I was speaking?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the right hon. Gentleman made certain digressions and was out of order on certain occasions.
  Mr. Bevins: Not wishing to he ungracious to the right hon. Gentleman, I was going on to give him a very short answer to the question which he addressed to my right hon. Friend. He objected to the fact that my right hon. Friend had seemingly rejected certain advice about the membership of the Peterlee Corporation. As I said to the right hon. Gentleman at Question Time, I think last week, my right hon. Friend is still considering the representations of the Easington Rural District Council, and that is why he has not yet replied to them.
  I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the important thing here is to get the right kind of Commission and to get the right people to serve upon
  360
  it. I also agree with the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) that the Commission should include members with local government experience and people with experience of the working of the new towns. My right hon. Friend has already given an assurance that certain members of the Commission will possess qualifications and experience of that kind. I repeat that at this Box tonight. However, my right hon. Friend does not agree that more than half the membership of the Commission should be appointed in the way suggested by the Amendment, and I will explain why in a moment.
  Before I do so, I should like to dismiss with all the emphasis of which I am capable the idea propounded by the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) that the Commission would be a financial body concerned only with financial considerations. That is wholly untrue, as I shall presently explain. Nor is it true to suggest, as has been suggested in the debate, that the Commission will be a remote and bureaucratic body without any real links with the localities in which the new towns are situated.
  The main point before the House is, what sort of a Commission do we want? I agree that if it were right in principle that the Commission should be largely composed of people nominated by local authorities or appointed by my right hon. Friend as the Amendment suggests, after consultation with local authorities, then it would be right to examine the best way of securing that result. The Amendment suggests one way, which is a substantial advance on what was suggested in Standing Committee.
  9.15 p.m.
  In the Government's view, however, it would be quite wrong that local government should have such a large say in the appointment of members. The development corporations were local bodies. The Commission is a national body with responsibilities in the twelve new towns throughout the country. For that reason, the connections of the Commission cannot, and should not, be as local as those of the development corporations which the Commission will replace.
  The first and most important task of the Commission is to act as a management agency. Therefore, its day-to-day contacts with the local authorities will

  361
  not need to be as close as the contacts enjoyed by the development corporations. I agree, however, that one could make a good case for requiring the Minister to consult local authorities before appointing members to the development corporations, as the 1946 Act provided. But there certainly is not, in our view, the same case for giving new town local authorities a say in the membership of the national Commission.
  During our discussion, there were several references to the possible remoteness of the Commission. Two right hon. Members opposite said that there were no Amendments about the composition of the Committees. That is not quite true. There are two Amendments on that very point which we shall shortly reach. I emphasise, however, that local authorities will be very interested, and rightly so, in some aspects of the Commission's work. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend has written into the Bill the provision for the establishment of local committees; and in the membership of those local committees, the local authorities will certainly have a say.
  When a not dissimiliar Amendment was being discussed in Standing Committee, my right hon. Friend went out of his way to say that he had it in mind that a member of the Commission itself should normally be the chairman of the local committee, with a view to creating the closest co-operation between the local people and the Commission. As I indicated earlier, my right hon. Friend hopes and expects to include on the Commission members whose experience of local government and new towns will enable them to play a valuable part on the Commission.
  Experience in local government and in new towns alone, however, is not the main requirement for a Commission of this nature. As has been well said, in a few years' time the Commission will be responsible to my right hon. Friend for assets valued at at least £400 million. Therefore, we clearly must have on the Commission men with a sound and thorough grasp of financial matters. It is not only a question of the right management policy for looking after industrial areas and factories. It is a question also of using the most able and most influential people we can get to serve on the Commission in order to
  362
  attract new industry to the new towns to create the necessary employment for the younger generation as it comes along.
  In all these things, we must have the best financial people, the people who are best qualified to take a prominent part in estate management, not only housing management, but industrial and commercial management also. Having said that, however, let no Member of the House think that my right hon. Friend is insensitive to the human side of the problems that arise in the new towns. That is not so. What he wants to do is to appoint a Commission—and he himself will take the responsibility for these appointments—which is best equipped to discharge its duty under the Bill.
  Mr. MacColl: There is nothing to stop the Minister, if he so wishes, putting on the Commission any financier he can think of from Mr. Clore upwards or downwards. At the moment, we are dealing with only half of the Commission. As I said in moving the Amendment, the other half can be used for including precisely the people whom my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) mentioned, in whom the Minister was most interested, namely, the financiers who were to regard this as a profit-making, financial undertaking.
  Our plea is that to balance those gentlemen, there should be on the Commission people who have local government experience, who carry the confidence of the local authorities in the areas and who know the workings of the new towns. The Minister, in fact, said that was a good idea. If it is a good idea, then it should be put in the Bill. If it is put in the Bill, we shall remove a great deal of fear and suspicion which people will have.
  If it is clearly and specifically stated in the Bill that the Minister will consult local authorities and put people of experience on the Commission, there will be more confidence in the Commission, and in the Bill, and more chance of the scheme working. If, with characteristic obstinacy, the Government say that they will not make this concession—although they are going to do it, they do not want to have it in writing—the effect will be to cause trouble in the areas because everyone will be afraid that the Commission will consist entirely of people coming from the city and running this as a big take-over undertaking.
  Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
  The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 212.

  Division No. 156.]

  AYES

  [9.22 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

  Popplewell, E.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Holman, P.

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Holmes, Horace

  Price, Phillps (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Howell Denis (All Saints)

  Pursey, Cmdr, H.

  Baird, J.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Randall, H. E.

  Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Rankin, John

  Benson, Sir George

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Blackburn, F.

  Hunter, A. E.

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Ross, William

  Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Boyd, T. C.

  Janner, B.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

  Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

  Brockway, A. F.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. ACreech (Wakefield)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Snow, J. W.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Burke, W. A.

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Kenyon, C.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Caliaghan, L. J.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Steele, T.

  Carmichael, J.

  Lawson, G. M.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Champion, A. J.

  Ledger, R. J.

  Stonehouse, John

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Stones, W. (Consett)

  Clunie, J.

  Lewis, Arthur

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Coldrick, W.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Swingler, S. T.

  Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

  Logan, D. G.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Symonds, J. B.

  Cronin, J. D.

  McAlister, Mrs. Mary

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  MacColl, J. E.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Mcinnes, J.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Deer, G.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Delargy, H. J.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Thornton, E.

  Diamond, John

  Mahon, Simon

  Timmons, J.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Usborne, H. C.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mason, Roy

  Watkins, T. E.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Weitzman, D.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)

  Moody, A. S.

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Foot, D. M.

  Mort, D. L.

  Willey, Frederick

  Forman, J. C.

  Moss, R.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Moyle, A.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

  Mulley, F. W.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Owen, W. J.

  Winterbottom, Richard

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)

  Paget, R. T.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Hale, Leslie

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Parker, J.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Paton, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hannan, W.

  Peart, T. F.

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons

  Hayman, F. H.

  Pentland, N.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Aitken, W. T.

  Biggs-Davison, J. A.

  Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)

  Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Bingham, R. M.

  Carr, Robert

  Arbuthnot, John

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Armstrong, C. W.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Cole, Norman

  Atkins, H. E.

  Body, R. F.

  Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  Cooke, Robert

  Baldwin, Sir Archer

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Balniel, Lord

  Brewis, John

  Corfield, F. V.

  Barlow, Sir John

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Batsford, Brian

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Baxter, Sir Beverley

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Cunningham, Knox

  Beamish, Col. Tufton

  Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

  Dance, J. C. G.

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald

  Burden, F. F. A.

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Pott, H. P.

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Kirk, P. M.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Duthie, Sir William

  Lambton, Viscount

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne. N.)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Leburn, W. G.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Errol, F. J.

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Fell, A.

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Finlay, Graeme

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Redmayne, M.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Forrest, G.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G, D.

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Gammans, Lady

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Gibson-Watt, D.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Russell, R. S.

  Glover, D.

  Macdonald Sir Peter

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Godber, J. B.

  Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

  Sharples, R. C.

  Goodhart, Philip

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Shepherd, William

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Gower, H. R.

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Speir, R. M.

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Green, A.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Storey, S.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Maddan, Martin

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Grimond, J.

  Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Teeling, W.

  Gurden, Harold

  Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

  Temple, John M.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Marshall, Douglas

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Harrison, A. B. C. (Maidon)

  Mathew, R.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Mawby, R. L.

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Medllctt, Sir Frank

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Wade, D. W.

  Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Holt, A. F.

  Neave, Airey

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Hornby, R. P.

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

  Wall, Patrick

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

  Noble, Michael (Argyle)

  Webster, David

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Nugent, Richard

  Whitelaw, W. S. I.

  Howard, John (Test)

  O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Page, R. G.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Woollam, John Victor

  Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Partridge, E.

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Iremonger T. L.

  Peel, W. J.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Peyton, J, W. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Colonel J. H, Harrison and

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Mr. Chichester-Clark.

  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 15, line 34, after the first "the", to insert "allocation and".
  Mr. Speaker: I think that this and the next Amendment can be taken together.
  Mr. Mitchison: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The object of the two Amendments is to deal with a question which I hope will not occupy the House for long but which we regard as of some importance.
  The Commission is a nominated body without any restrictions on nomination. It is to have committees which will be local committees in the various new towns or possibly in a pair of new towns. They will consist of people nominated
  366
  after consultation with the district councils. Those committees may have powers delegated to them. They must have delegated to them the power of house management or arrangements about house management. They may have delegated to them other matters, but there is no provision in the Bill obliging anything but the one matter of house management.
  It seems to us that this matter ought to be a local one, but that it cannot be separated from various other matters which equally in our view should be local ones. I call the attention of the House to the fact that the local powers are exercised under the general direction of the Commission. Therefore, as I see it, there is no risk in transferring quite a considerable power by way of delegation.

  367
  We propose to extend to the committees by delegation in this way the question of not only managing houses but also of managing premises for commercial and industrial use and, further, to give them power to deal not merely with questions of management but also with questions of allocation of land as between these residential, commercial and industrial purposes. That is the short effect of the Amendments. They appear to us to be matters which must be considered together and are predominantly local matters.
  We take the view that if the arrangements in the Bill are to work at all, the extent of delegation to the committees should be as large as possible. If anything that can properly and adequately be dealt with by the committees is left to a nominated central Commission sitting in London, we believe it will make the operation of the Bill more difficult, less democratic, more inhuman, likely to meet with more opposition from the inhabitants of the new towns and from the general public. For those reasons I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that these things must go together and that he will accept the suggestion that they should be made an obligatory question of delegation to the committees, subject always to the general direction of the central commission.
  Mr. Gibson: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Bevins: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) for speaking with such brevity. The idea behind the Amendments, as he explained, is that the Commission should be compelled to delegate to one local committee the responsibility not only for the management of houses, as is provided for in the Schedule, but for the management of its industrial and commerical properties. Although the Schedule obliges the Commission to set up a committee to deal with the housing in each town, it is nevertheless free to set up other committees for other purposes if it wants to do so. Therefore, with the exception of housing, the Commission has a free hand to delegate or not to delegate.
  However, my right hon. Friend has already expressed himself as being in favour of delegation where it is suitable,
  368
  and at an earlier stage of our proceedings he said:
  "I am anxious that we should not restrict the scope of delegation, and if the Bill has created an impression that the Government are out for maximum centralisation and minimum decentralisation, then I am anxious to correct any such feeling."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 14th May, 1959; c. 640–1.]
  As members of the Standing Committee will recall, my right hon. Friend agreed to re-examine the wording of the Schedule so that it could be clear beyond all doubt that we should welcome the idea of delegation where it was suitable, and I am advised that the wording of the Schedule unaltered certainly allows that to be done.
  It is my responsibility to advise the House against accepting the Amendment. I will, very briefly, give the reasons. First, what might suit one new town might well not suit another, and the Commission ought to have a free hand to work out the best arrangements it can in the light of both local circumstances and experience.
  I should have thought that it was very doubtful whether a body of this sort would in any case want to give a single committee this crop of responsibilities. After all, housing management in itself is a very big job in many local authority areas, and, indeed, in many new towns. For example, at Harlow there will be more than 20,000 houses. Very often it is the case—this is the important consideration—that those who are best qualified to deal with housing management are not very knowledgeable about the management of industrial property, and the converse is very often true, as is well known by hon. Members with experience of local government.
  I agree that local authority housing committees very often have under their wing the management of shops on local authority housing estates, but I should have thought from my limited experience that it was almost invariable in local government that the management of industrial and commercial properties as such was the responsibility of a separate committee. We take the view that it would be wrong to lump houses, shops, commercial premises and industrial premises under the management of one committee for the reasons that I have given.
  Mr. Mitchison: The short answer to the last observation is that there is nothing whatever in the Amendment which obliges anything of the sort. It leaves it entirely at large to have any number of committees, any arrangements about sub-committees and any arrangements about common membership or the like. We stand by the simple proposition that in a new town one cannot expect to separate housing from questions of the job and the office and the allocation of land as between these various purposes. We think that those matters ought to be delegated and that there ought to be a provision in the Bill to that effect.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: I am astonished at the reasons given by the Parliamentary Secretary for rejecting the Amendment. We are not asking for something that changes between one town and another. The hon. Gentleman said that the short answer was that what suited one town would not suit another.
  I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has some experience of local government. Does he lay down that what would suit one town would not suit another in the acceptance of housing tenders? Does he not lay down that all tenders must have his approval? There are many towns which would gladly take refuge in his statement and say, "It
  would not suit us but it may suit the town further along the railway line." Surely it is a principle that allocation as well as management matters.
  Allocation is very important. The pioneer of new towns, Sir Ebenezer Howard, laid down as the sine qua non ownership and control of land. We are asking for allocation. Anyone who has worked in local government for any length of time knows the pressure that is brought to bear on members of local authorities in regard to allocation. Industrial and commercial local authorities in particular are subject to pressure in regard to the allocation of industrial and commercial patches of land.
  There is nothing in what the hon. Gentleman said that weakens our Amendment. The Amendment is based on sound principles, on standard practice, on all dealings in land, in dwellings, and even in commercial undertakings up and down the length and breadth of the country. I do not know why the Parliamentary Secretary will not accept an important Amendment which surely is in line with the whole conception of new town policy.
  Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
  The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 202.

  Division No. 157.]

  AYES

  [9.43 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Howell, Denis (All Saints)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Davles, Harold (Leek)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Deer, G.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Delargy, H. S.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Diamond, John

  Hunter, A. E.

  Baird, J

  Dodds, N. N.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Balfour, A.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Benson, Sir George

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Blackburn, F.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Janner, B.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. I.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

  Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)

  Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

  Bowles, F. G.

  Fletcher, Eric

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Boyd, T. C.

  Foot, D. M.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Forman, J. C.

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Brockway, A. F.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Kenyon, C.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Gibson, C. W.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Lawson, G. M.

  Burke, W. A.

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Ledger, R. J.

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hale, Leslie

  Lewis, Arthur

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Carmichael, J.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Logan, D. G.

  Champion, A. J

  Hannan, W.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Hayman, F. H.

  McAlister, Mrs. Mary

  Clunie, J.

  Harbison, Miss M.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Coldrick, W.

  Holman, P.

  MacDermot, Niall

  Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

  Holmes, Horace

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Houghton, Douglas

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Mahon, Simon

  Randall, H. E.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Rankin, John

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Redhead, E. C.

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Thornton, E.

  Mason, Roy

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Timmons, J.

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Ross, William

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Mitchiton, G. R.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Moody, A. S.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Moss, R.

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Weitzman, D.

  Moyle, A.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Willey, Frederick

  Owen, W. J.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Paget, R. T.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Steele, T.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Parker, J.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Paton, John

  Stonehouse, John

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh E.)

  Pentland, N.

  Stones, W. (Consett)

  Winterbottom, Richard

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Popplewell, E.

  Swingler, S. T.

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Price, Phillps (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Symonds, J. B.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Proctor, W. T.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Finlay, Graeme

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Aitken, W. T.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Forrest, G.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Arbuthnot, John

  Gammans, Lady

  Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

  Armstrong, C. W.

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Ashton, H.

  Gibson-Watt, D.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

  Atkins, H. E.

  Glover, D.

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Godber, J. B.

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Baldwin, Sir Archer

  Goodhart, Philip

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Balniel, Lord

  Gough, C. F. H.

  McMaster, Stanley

  Barlow, Sir John

  Gower, H. R.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Batsford, Brian

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Maddan, Martin

  Baxter, Sir Beverley

  Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

  Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

  Beamish, Col. Tufton

  Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Green, A.

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Grimond, J.

  Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

  Bingham, R. M.

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Marshall, Douglas

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Mathew, R.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Mawby, R. L.

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Gurden, Harold

  Medlicott, Sir Frank

  Body, R. F.

  Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Brewis, John

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Henderson-Stewart, sir James

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

  Neave, Airey

  Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

  Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Holt, A. F.

  Noble, Michael (Argyll)

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Hornby, R. P.

  Nugent, Richard

  Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  O'Neill, Hn. Phellm (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Carr, Robert

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Page, R. G.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

  Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Cole, Norman

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Partridge, E.

  Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

  Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

  Peel, W. J.

  Cooke, Robert

  Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Corfleld, F. V.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Pott, H. P.

  Cunningham, Knox

  Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Dance, J. C. G.

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Deedes, W. F.

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Kirk. P. M.

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Redmayne, M.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Leburn, W. G.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  du cann, E. D. L.

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Duthie, Sir William

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne. N.)

  Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Longden, Gilbert

  Russell, R. S.

  Erroll, F. J.

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Fell, A.

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Sharples, R. C.

  372

  373

  Shepherd, William

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Wall, Patrick

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Webster, David

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

  Whitelaw, W. S. I.

  Storey, S.

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

  Woollam, John Victor

  Taylor, William (Bradford N,)

  Wade, D. W.

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Teeling, W.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Temple, John M.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Legh and Mr. Bryan.

  9.52 p.m.
  Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  As my right hon. Friend said to the House on Second Reading, the ultimate test of this Bill will be whether it
  "so shapes policy that the new towns will flourish and that the thousands of people living in them will be able to enjoy the sort of life which we all wish them to have."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1958; Vol. 596, c. 951.]
  The Government believe they will succeed in this.
  We take the view that there are three stages in the growth of the new towns, first the development which has been in progress since 1947, next the consolidation period as the towns settle down and complete their expansion by natural growth, and thirdly, the settlement of ultimate ownership. The first part of this Bill concerns itself solely with the second stage, that is to say, consolidation. It in no way pretends to deal with the third stage when the towns have reached maturity, because that stage is still quite a long way off and we had better take our fences when we come to them.
  I was very interested to read the recent Press statement on the future of the new towns issued by the National Executive Committee of the Labour party because, although it came to a different conclusion from the Government as to what ought to happen in the middle phase of the new towns, it did at least recognise that there are special and peculiar problems in the middle phase of development, that is when the influx of population from outside has more or less come to an end but when populations are still rising fairly rapidly.
  I shall say a brief word or two about the main provisions of this Bill. Part I provides for the establishment of a Commission in the new towns
  "for the purpose of taking over, holding, managing and turning to account the property previously vested in the development corporation."
  374
  Our general objective as regards the Commission is that it should be a good landlord. It should be businesslike, but its commercial sense should at all times be tempered by the knowledge that its decisions and its policies are liable to affect the happiness of hundreds of thousands of people who will come to live and work in the new towns. Clearly a great deal will depend on the care and judgment with which members of the Commission are selected and also on the extent to which the Commission succeeds in decentralising much of its business to the right kind of local committees. What my right hon. Friend wants to secure are men and women with wide experience of estate management in its broadest sense, people with experience of large-scale financial responsibilities, people who understand housing management and who see both its human and its financial aspects, and perhaps most important of all, people who are genuinely friendly to the conception of the new towns.
  As for decentralisation, my right hon. Friend certainly does not want the Commission to be a distant or formal or bureaucratic body, and that is why we are giving the Commission power to set up local committees and obliging it to establish what amounts to a housing committee after consultation with the local council.
  Part II of the Bill deals mainly with financial advances to development corporations. Clause 10 increases the limit of advances by £100 million to £400 million. These advances will largely be used to finance the house and factory building which is in progress in the new towns and which will continue there for many years, because many of these towns have not yet reached even the half-way stage.
  We are, however, rather beyond the house-cum-industry stage in the new towns. Town centres have been commenced and in certain cases are well

  375
  advanced. At Stevenage there is an all-pedestrian shopping centre. Social amenities are also being developed. My right hon. Friend recently opened a new community centre at Hemel Hempstead which had been built by the borough council with large-scale financial help from the development corporation. Similar centres are on the way at Harlow and Basildon. At Harlow a start has been made on the central sports area, and the corporation is doing a great deal of preliminary work. At Welwyn Garden City the stadium is making progress. These financial advances will be devoted not only to the task of building more houses and providing more shops and industry but also to assisting local authorities and other agencies in the provision of amenities.
  We on the Government side of the House believe that this is a worthwhile Bill and its purpose finds unanimous backing on this side of the House. In the country the Measure has been generally welcomed as providing a wise and realistic approach to the mid-term problems of the new towns.
  9.58 p.m.
  Mr. Mitchison: Continuing what the Parliamentary Secretary was saying, "but in the new towns this Bill has been greeted with distrust, disapproval and dislike."
  We should be voting against the Third Reading this evening if the Bill consisted solely of Part I. We indicated on Second Reading that it is to Part I, which deals with the Commission and similar matters, that we take objection. To the provision of more money for the new towns we take no objection whatever, and in those circumstances we do not propose to divide the House tonight against the Third Reading, since the Bill comprises the second part as well as the first.
  I desire, however, to say one or two words. The circumstances in which the Bill is introduced are these: there are twelve new towns in England and Wales. they were started by the Labour Government and there has been no addition to them under any Tory Government. Into those twelve new towns have gone technicians and staffs very conscious of the importance of what they are doing and of the value of the social experiment to which they are contributing. They went there, as did the people who moved to
  376
  the new towns, with the confidence which they had at the time that the new towns would become democratic institutions and would be handed over to the local authorities in whose areas they are situated.
  That was the view of the whole House, including the Conservative Party, then in Opposition, expressed in Section 15 of the 1946 Act, which is being repealed by the Bill. That matter is important, because throughout the long debates we have had on the Bill no one has ever adduced any real reason why Section 15 in principle should not remain effective, or indicated any substantial change between the position as foreseen in 1946 and the position as seen and foreseen today.
  Accordingly, we start with the fact that this change is a complete reversal of attitude in a matter affecting the lives and beliefs of the people of these new towns and those who have been working for them. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I regret that.
  We look, then, at the nature of the change which the Bill makes. We are prepared to recognise that there may well be a period of consolidation, and we should not have taken the same objection to the Bill if it had been a transitory Measure directed to that period, provided that the original handing over to the local authorities were to remain in it. That has been denied us. We have been given no indication—there is no indication in the Bill—of how long the state of affairs set up by it will continue. We have been given no indication that the new towns are to be ultimately handed over to the local authorities. Knowing the ways of this Government and of the party opposite, I do not put it past them to hand them over as a good bargain to private enterprise, if that happens to suit them at the time. A Government who have advanced the millions they have, on the terms they have, to private industry recently, and who are prepared to treat those advances in a far more generous spirit than the advances they have made for the purposes of the new towns, are certainly not to be trusted as to their ultimate disposal.
  New towns are, at present, enterprises run by development corporations having an office on the spot, having their undertaking in the new town, often with people

  377
  closely connected with the locality, working in conjunction with the local authority. They are, as their function of development is fulfilled, to disappear. I do not complain of that. That was always intended.
  What will come in their place? In their place, the whole undertaking, every new town in England and Wales, is to be handed over one after another to a single Commission nominated by the Minister with absolutely no control over the people he nominates. The Minister having nominated the Commission, the Commission is to be, we are told—these are the highest aspirations of the Government—a good landlord. In the very next sentence, the Parliamentary Secretary said that on its decisions, namely, on the decisions of the good landlord, depend the happiness of hundreds of thousands of people. The Tory Party is very much the same, whether it is talking about housing or new towns. It is its ideal, its supreme philosophy, that there should be a good landlord and within the control of "the good landlord" should be the happiness of hundreds of thousands of people.
  What has happened to democracy? Are not the hundreds of thousands of people to have any elected authorities which are allowed to have control of these new towns? Are not the hundreds of thousands of people to have any voice in their own destinies, or are they to depend solely on one single "good landlord"? What is "the good landlord"? He is a State corporation, in a sense in which we in the Labour Party have never dared or wished to set up a State corporation, completely uncontrolled as to the membership, completely in the hands, not merely of the Minister, but of the Treasury, and set up for purposes which seem to me in the long run to be far more financial than social. A good landlord indeed!
  The Tory Party is destroying some democratic institutions, for that is what these new towns would have become as soon as they passed into the hands of the local authorities. The Tory Party is destroying democratic institutions and nationalising a great deal of property under the harshest bureaucratic autocracy that the Tory Party or anybody else has ever succeeded in inventing.
  378
  That is the final effect of the Bill. What about all this philosophy of theirs? I thought that they did not like nationalisation. I thought that they did not like bureaucratic autocracy. I even thought that they did not like centralisation. Have they ever produced a Bill that has so many instances of everything to which they object as this particular effort? And they leave us with this thing—the thing that the Minister left on the doorstep—not merely for the moment but for an indefinite period.
  Just as those who went to work in the new towns were told that this was only a temporary job, so, now, we are being told that this is only a temporary job, but no limit is set to its operation. For an indefinite period, I repeat, we are condemned by an ideological Tory Party to centralised, unrepresentative autocracy, and to the nationalisation of democratic institutions. Even worse than that, we certainly take one step towards the destruction of the social ideal and social adventure that these new towns, as originally conceived, represented in the minds, at that time, not merely of the Labour Party but of those who then occupied these benches.
  10.7 p.m.
  Mr. Maddan: I do not want to spend: many minutes giving this Bill my best wishes as it goes on its way, but I would indeed like to do that. After the superlatives used by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in its condemnation, I want to adopt a calmer note and to say that, completely contrary to his assertions, this Bill is welcomed not only by opinion at large but in the new towns themselves. Further, the people in the new towns are heartily glad that the Bill has been brought in and pressed through, because it will protect them from being made shuttlecocks in the party battles.
  The Bill provides that the new Commission, which will take over the assets created by the development corporations when the phase of fast immigration comes to an end, will be under Parliamentary control, and its actions will be debatable in this House. Therefore, we are not in any way setting up an autocracy such as the hon. and learned Gentleman described. I have not found that people at all object to the ideal set out in the Measure that the Commission

  379
  should be a good landlord. On the contrary, I have found it welcomed.
  Little, if anything has been said during the Committee and Report stages about Clause 12, which provides that the development corporations as they continue their work now can make contributions towards the amenities of the towns in the same way that the Commission will be empowered to do when it takes over. It has often been said that the provision of amenities has lagged behind the development of other sides of the new towns—housing, factories, shops and the like.
  It has been said that not only is that so but it has had an ill effect on the building of a community spirit, because the structures and places in which to build it have not been there. However that may be, all the new towns, so far as I am aware—and certainly those that I know—have succeeded in developing the community spirit, and the people living there are proud to develop it. But it is certainly our duty in Parliament to ensure that further amenities are provided, because we do not want towns which are merely places to live and work in. We want towns in which people can develop to the very full their personalities and interests. I have no doubt that as the new towns settle down into the third and final phase in the years to come, it will be seen that they have been helped to become a success by the provisions proposed by my right hon. Friend.
  10.11 p.m.
  Mr. Leo Abse: As far as has been explained at all, we have heard at every stage of this Bill that one of the important reasons why the assets of the new towns are being vested in a central Commission is that otherwise we should be facing the danger of having all those assets vested in what the Minister has indicated again and again he regards as a dangerous monopoly. Concerned as he has been with the fact that, as a result of the development of the new towns, it is possible for local authorities to own, govern and control the assets of these new towns, he has made it abundantly clear that, apart from Treasury reasons, it is primarily because of this that he wishes to vest these assets in this bureaucratic centralised body in London.
  380
  However, if one looks at the realities and makes an empirical approach one finds that in many cases, as in the new town that I represent, there is no possibility of any of the hazards and dangers about which he speaks occurring. This is so not only because of the present situation but because of the manner in which is has developed. In the new town of Cwmbran which I represent, there is a diversity of ownership of industrial, commercial and residential properties. There we have 22 factories inside the designated area with 3 million square feet, and not a foot of them belongs to the Cwmbran Development Corporation. On the periphery of the designated area there are six other factories with 1¼ million square feet and not a foot belongs to the Cwmbran Development Corporation. There is certainly no danger in Cwmbran of the industrial undertakings being vested in a local authority monopoly. There is practically no factory footage vested in the development corporation.
  Take the position of commercial undertakings and shops. There are scores of shops within the designated area which belong to private landlords or are owner occupied. There is no danger of a commercial undertaking becoming monopolised by one group in Cwmbran.
  Let us take the housing situation. We have within the new town 2,700 houses which are privately owned. Of those 1,000 are let and 1,700 are owner occupied. We have all the diversity that we can possibly expect to have in such an area. If that is not enough, we have already seen that the development corporation itself makes ample provision by allowing large acreages to go, where literally hundreds of plots are available, for private individuals to erect their houses, and indeed it is now engaged in giving considerable acreages to private speculative development.
  Apart from all the privately-owned houses, we have in existence a conscious plan for development to see that there will be owner-occupied houses within the designated area. The picture presenting itself is that we have every type of house ownership, including a housing association, which has 150 houses. If, as was once claimed, an empirical approach has been adopted by the Government and if, indeed, there have been some radical changes during

  381
  the years between 1946 and today which justify this reversal of policy, I cannot see them in Cwmbran, and neither can my constituents.
  If one considers why it is that there is this hostility towards a publicly-owned body, through a local authority, having more and more assets, one realises that the reason is that the Minister has a nostalgia for the nineteenth century. He has a nostalgia for what were private enterprise, urban cities, those he calls normal cities—he used the terms many times—cities where, as we well know, private enterprise gave debased living conditions to the majority of the population and where, in fact, it was only State and local authority intervention that made it possible for the majority of people to live decent lives.
  This Bill is a reactionary Bill in the full sense of that term. The Minister does not explain what is ultimately to happen to the assets. He does not say what will happen ultimately because, at the back of his mind, he is turning towards the nineteenth-century conception of a city, a city in which there is a large measure of private enterprise control of the bigger undertakings.
  This conception brings with it not only difficult and unfortunate ideological trends but it brings with it a host of other problems also. For example, there will be serious complications in housing administration. Today, when I wish to examine a housing question in Cwmbran, I have to visit two sets of offices, the offices of the Cwmbran Development Corporation and the offices of the local authority. One at the moment controls 3,500 houses and the other controls 1,700. There are two sets of offices, two bodies side by side. I go into one and then into the other. We have there the same type of houses being administered, some on one side of the street and some on the other. Some, indeed, have different rents, but, by and large, it is exactly the same type of property occupied by the same sort of people. Perhaps, almost inevitably in the transitional phase, we have housing administration in duplicate. What is to happen under the Bill? Housing will be administered in London, by the local committee which, we learned in Committee, will have its own offices locally,
  382
  and also there will be the local authority offices. This is, indeed, a triumph for Whitehall. We shall have housing administration in triplicate. With it will come all manner of serious problems, problems, for instance, in the social services.
  Cwmbran Development Corporation, like most development corporations, I suppose, does not regard its rent collectors merely as rent collectors; it recognises that they have a rôle as social workers to play. What is to happen when we have a centralised Commission? With the houses not being vested in the local authority, will there not be further lack of co-ordination in the social work which is so essential? Will the rent collectors, if they are acting as social workers, have to come to some understanding or liaison with the local authorities? The condemnation recently expressed about lack of co-ordination in our social services will be exacerbated so long as we have this enclave of a strange nationalised concern inside the designated area.
  Beyond that, there will inevitably be administrative friction betwen the local authority and the Commission. We are already experiencing this in Cwmbran. Whereas, hitherto, the local authority has been ready to make land available which otherwise it would wish to husband for its own purposes, now, of course, the local authority digs in. It believes that it has no future interest in the land and it has no interest in the houses which may be put on it. Already, even before the Bill has become an Act, there is a tug-of-war going on. What we are seeing in Cwmbran is what is likely to happen all along the line. Administrative difficulties will arise because there will be considered to be by people on the urban district council a lack of coincidence of interest between the development corporation and the local authority.
  Apart from administrative difficulties, I have already seen in the consequences of the Bill the psychological estrangement which is likely to result as a consequence of having this centralised nominated body to deal with houses within Cwmbran. Anyone who has had experience of housing management knows full well that it is more than a question of collecting rent. Anyone who

  383
  has been on an estates committee in a city knows full well that the handling and management of a large estate requires a great deal of tact and there should be constant and ever-regular channels of communication between tenant and landlord. Once one begins to interfere with those lines of communication, once it is felt that there is no communication between tenant and landlord, troubles begin.
  What is even more likely to happen apart from the regular type of trouble which comes as a result of this type of structure is that there will be a feeling of lack of involvement. Most of the residents in Cwmbran come from nearby villages and townships and from places where they have a deep and profound sense, as we have in Wales, of locality and community. When they come to Cwmbran they want as far and as speedily as they can to become part of estrangement. What is being given to them is the knowledge that their assets will be controlled by a body 160 miles away. This will deal with their assets, houses, homes and amenities. Nothing is more likely to cause a feeling of estrangement than that knowledge.
  We are constantly complaining that people lack responsibility, and that there is a certain malaise within the community where people will not shoulder what we regard as their own individual responsibility. The Bill creates conditions under which people begin to contract out, where the people governing them are remote. anonymous, unknown to them, whom they have no contact at all. This is a socially reactionary Bill because it isolates the individual still further instead of giving to him a greater sense of responsibility and community values.
  Finally, we have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) talk of the Minister reverting to his previous position rather than facing up to the responsibilities which he has as Minister for Housing. The right hon. Gentleman is also Minister for Welsh Affairs. There was a time when there was a demand throughout the Principality for more devolution and there was a very deeply felt emotional and intellectual attitude that we needed to have more control in Wales. We regard the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman as a
  384
  dusty answer to that clamour. The Minister said that there should be time in order to see how he would be able to influence, in the Cabinet, the affairs of Wales and to look after the community interests of Wales. Today, Wales as well as Cwmbran will judge the Minister and will ask "Is this how we have devolution to Welsh authorities?" They will say that instead of vesting assets of the Welsh people in the local authorities of Wales what he has done is to snatch them away to London and has taken them from where they truly belong.
  We in Wales regard the Bill as one more failure in our national aspirations. What the Government have done is to reduce Cwmbran to Colonial status, to see that it does not have its full and proper responsibilities. This is a Bill which we can only regard with considerable dismay.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. Gough: I hope that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) will forgive me if I do not enter into an England versus Wales match. As the representative of the first town that will come within the orbit of the Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament, I hope that at this late hour the House will allow me to say a few words.
  I have been through all the stages of the Bill and I do not think that there is any hon. Member, on either side, who would say that it has not been thoroughly thrashed out. We have certainly had our differences of view, but my right hon. Friend is to be highly commended on giving every hon. Member, on both sides, every opportunity to put his point of view.
  During this period, it has often seemed to me that it would have been a marvellous thing if these debates had taken place in another legislature within the Commonwealth. It might have been a wonderful thing if the legislators at Canberra were debating a New Towns Bill of this nature, so that we could transplant a whole community from this country to Australia, where people are very much needed. I cannot pursue that line much further, but I wanted to say it, because in the context of the Bill one of the greatest dangers to the new towns and to whatever enactments we have is that they will fail in that they do not

  385
  reduce the population of the great cities from which the people of the new towns come.
  I was immensely surprised by the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). Undoubtedly, he has not been backward in opposing the Government. I was surprised that he was not taking the fight to the death. I did not think a great deal of the hon. and learned Member's reasons. He began by saying that we were voting a certain amount of money and then he came in with a full-blooded attack which from the first was based utterly on fallacy.
  The hon. and learned Member said that the people in the new towns looked upon the Bill with distrust and disapproval. I shall quote only my own new town of Crawley. In the recent local government elections, the people there had a magnificent opportunity to give their verdict on the Bill. It was not the fault of the hon. and learned Member's friends down there for not plugging it. It was the one issue before the electorate and there was a 4 per cent. swing in our favour. The result in other towns might be even more startling.
  It was not, therefore, up to the normal high standards that the hon. and learned Gentleman pursues that he should have said that the Bill was greeted with distrust and approval. Nothing of the sort. I reassure the hon. and learned Gentleman that when the Bill, as an Act, really makes its impact in Crawley, there will be a further satisfactory swing in our direction.
  Mr. E. G. Willis Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East), Wait and see.
  Mr. Gough: The next point upon which the hon. and learned Member dilated was that of the good landlord. That is precisely what is in the minds of the ordinary men and women in Crawley. They do not believe at this stage that their local authority, as at present constituted, with the very small amount of experience that it has, will be a good landlord. They have a good deal of reason for this view, as I shall explain. After our recent local government elections, 60 per cent. of the electorate of Crawley voted for the friends of the hon. and learned Member. Forty per cent. voted for people who look upon political issues the same way as I do.
  Mr. Willis: Call them Tories.
  Mr. Gough: The majority of Socialists on the committees have hogged every single appointment there is. Forty per cent. of the electorate of Crawley are not represented on any hospital, school or any other of the various committees which normally have representation from minority views. In other words, they have done a "Lewisham". Will people who do that sort of thing be good landlords? It is not unreasonable for the people of Crawley at this moment to say that it would be far wiser to follow the line taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister in the Bill. That line is that there must still be a period of development. That is all we say. In Crawley we have passed, or are nearly passing, the first phase. We are now coming to the second. We in Crawley believe, and I think that it is much more generally believed than the hon. and learned Member for Kettering supposes, that it is still a wise thing to have these tremendous national investments in the hands of what will be the finest professional body to look after them.
  It is on these lines that I believe the Bill will be a great success. It will take another step forward in the progress of one of the most exciting developments that we have made since the war—and in saying that I give the fullest credit to hon. and right hon. Members opposite.
  10.31 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Body: I should like to cap what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough). We find the Bill even more popular in the new town of Basildon. That is one of the answers to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) when he says that the new towns disapprove of the Bill.
  Before the Bill was introduced there was a Socialist council in Basildon. Reports of the debates in Standing Committee on the Bill were widely circulated before our local election in May. I did my best to circulate the views of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering and the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and others who spoke against the Bill. I am glad to say that, thanks very largely to them, we captured control of that Labour council and now one new

  387
  town has a strongly entrenched Conservative majority after an election in which the main issue was this Bill.
  I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government for having introduced the Bill. I support it because it is a popular Bill in Basildon new town. I am certain that there is no one in Basildon who has thought carefully about it who does not agree with its principle. It should go through.
  10.33 p.m.
  Mr. MacColl: I am sorry that my humble efforts in Standing Committee had such a disastrous electoral effect. If the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Body) had been able to circulate his own speeches they probably would have had a comparable effect, but unfortunately, as far as I can remember, there was none.
  Mr. Body: There were six.
  Mr. MacColl: The hon. Member's contributions to our discussions, though not altogether absent, were perhaps not particularly profound or relevant. Therefore, I am not surprised that he was able to avoid the embarrassment of circulating them. We are told that in Crawley 60 per cent. of the people, after examining these issues and having them debated and put before them, supported our side of the House. I should have thought that was a reasonable proportion of support to obtain.
  Mr. Gough: It was 64 per cent. before, now it is 60 per cent.
  Mr. MacColl: I think that 60 per cent. is a reasonable proportion to have.
  Mr. Mitchison: We shall be content with that at the General Election.
  Mr. MacColl: I was about to remark that if we got that, as I think we probably will get 60 per cent. at the next General Election, the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Housing and Local Government will be redundant. I get some satisfaction from thinking that he will not qualify for pension for loss of office.
  I do not want to detain the House with an exhaustive analysis of the Bill. Our position on it on this side of the House is perfectly clear.
  388
  We believe that there is no case for having this middle stage of the Commission interposed between the ultimate ownership of the local authorities and the work of the corporations. We believe that the corporations and the local authorities can easily blend one into the other and have a smooth transfer by degrees as the work of the corporations finishes and the local councils grow in responsibility. We do not believe that there is any case for having this middle stage. We believe that it is a dangerous thing to have because it will divorce the management of the houses from the people and lead to profit and the exploitation of the land values predominant in the development of the new towns. Therefore, we are against this part of the Bill.
  However, we are not voting against the Bill, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, simply because we want more money for new towns and we want more new towns and it would be rather silly to vote against giving what little money is proposed when we want more.
  10.37 p.m.
  Mr. H. Brooke: There is little that I need or can add to the admirable speech with which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary moved the Third Reading of the Bill, except to express my thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan), Horsham (Mr. Gough) and Billericay (Mr. Body) for their contributions and for the close and sympathetic understanding of the new towns in their constituencies which has been shown throughout our debates.
  I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hitchin has said in rebutting the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that the Bill had met with distrust, disapproval and dislike throughout the new towns. If there is any justification for those words, it can only be within small groups of party-minded people in the new towns, because, frankly, the people of the new towns as a whole are closely interested in one thing and one thing only about the future of the new towns, and that is that they shall be well administered. They do not greatly mind by whom they are administered provided that the administration is good, and the reason

  389
  for the Bill is that the Government believe that in the next stage good administration can be given to the new towns better through the Bill than by handing them over to the local authorities here and now or by any other agency that might be suggested. As to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), if anybody can turn the new town of Cwmbran into an unhappy place, he will.
  I regard the new towns as one of the boldest and most important experiments which this country has carried through in the last 15 years. They are not nearly so well known within our own island as they are by visitors from overseas except for those who have the experience in living in or near them, but the Government are proud indeed to have been able during the past seven or eight years to make their contribution to their welfare, and so long as a Conservative Government remain in power that certainly will continue.
  390
  I invite the attention of the House to one curiosity. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering in his first words on the Second Reading of the Bill said:
  "This is a scandalous Bill."
  He said later in his speech:
  "It is a complete denial of democracy …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1958; Vol. 596, c. 857–69.]
  Now he says he will not divide the House against it. Can it be that the Government's arguments have persuaded him to see reason in the matter, or is it that his troops have gone home so that he is left powerless?
  Mr. Mitchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on Second Reading we divided not against the Bill but on a reasoned Amendment?
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

NATIONAL GALLERIES OF SCOTLAND BILL
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
10.40 p.m.
Mr. E. G. Willis: I think that we ought to have a few more words from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland before we say farewell to this Bill It has been exceedingly difficult, of course, to raise any question at all on the Bill thanks to the uncooperative attitude of the Government. In fact, it was not until the final stages in Committee that we actually discovered what the Bill did. We then learned that it was intended to fill a gap in the 1906 Act.
Under the 1906 Act it was possible for the Secretary of State to prescribe functions other than those mentioned in the Bill to be performed by the trustees of the art galleries. But, unfortunately, the 1906 Act never made any provision for enabling Parliament to vote money with which to carry out those functions. Therefore, for 53 years the Government have had power to do certain things, or at least to instruct the trustees to carry out certain functions, but have not had the means of providing the money for those functions.
I am bound to say that it does not speak very highly of what the Government have tried to do in the realm of art that they should have required 53 years to discover that they had no money with which to carry out the functions of the 1906 Act—no power to get the money with which to carry out the functions of the Act. It took 53 years to discover that. Obviously, therefore, the Government have not been very concerned about encouraging art in Scotland. That is the first point I wish to make.
Having discovered five minutes before the end of the Committee proceedings what the Bill actually did, we then in the last few minutes of the sitting tried to get some answers to a few questions
392
during the final speech of the Joint Under-Secretary. We asked him whether, in fact, the Secretary of State would be willing to consider some of the many suggestions made during the Second Reading debate and would give effect to them. The hon. Gentleman did not reply to that question.
One of the Amendments which we had down on the Notice Paper in Committee, and which was not in order, sought to provide
"suitable additional buildings in Edinburgh or elsewhere for the wider display of national art treasures for the benefit of the people of Scotland."
That seemed to be a reasonable thing to request.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): It may have been very reasonable, but it cannot be debated on Third Reading.
Mr. Willis: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but the Bill actually provides the Government with the money with which to do these things. It enables the Secretary of State to obtain the money from the House with which to carry out all the functions mentioned in the original Act. I submit, therefore, that we are in order to ask the Joint Under-Secretary what functions he intends to carry out when once this Bill is passed. Is that not in order?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understood it was something which had not been accepted.
Mr. Willis: I was quoting one of the suggestions which have been made. We should like to know whether or not the Secretary of State is now prepared to consider this suggestion when he obtains the Bill. We also made the proposal that arrangements should be made for the wider distribution of pictures throughout Scotland and asked that the Secretary of State should give instructions to the Trustees about that. This Bill provides means whereby he can obtain money to do that. I think that is a correct interpretation of what the Bill does. I should like to know whether the Secretary of State will now consider this suggestion. What will he do in addition to the one proposal which has been made to give powers to the Trustees to look after the proposed art

393
gallery at Inverleith House? Will the Secretary of State look at the suggestions made during Second Reading and put some of the better ones into effect?
I should have thought it important that the Secretary of State should treat this matter seriously. We have had a number of reports on this question. Last week the Gulbenkian Committee reported that an effort should be made to spread our activities throughout the provinces. That Committee was looking at the subject as a whole and suggested how it could be done. As we pointed out during Second Reading, the same ought to be done for Scotland. We have had this Report since Second Reading, and it reinforces our argument. Is the Secretary of State prepared to do that when he has these powers?
Finally, I ask a question that we have asked several times. When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to proceed with the provision of a proper gallery for modern art in Scotland? Under this Bill he can now obtain the necessary money from Parliament for the purposes of running such a gallery. Apparently he could not do so before. The Ministry of Works could have built a beautiful art gallery for Scotland but the Secretary of State would not have had money with which to do anything about it and it has taken fifty-three years to discover that position. The desire is there and, if the Secretary of State would show the same desire to get something done, we should be happier. May we have an indication of when the Government intend to proceed with this project? It was considered to be one of the urgent necessities of the art world twenty-five years ago. We are still fobbed off with second-best and are given no indication of when the Government intend to proceed with the provision of a proper Scottish gallery of modern art. Will the Joint Under-Secretary tell us something about this, because in the final speech in Committee he said:
"This building up process will provide a collection of pictures to display in the Gallery of Modern Art to be built on the Queen Street site, if that is the site ultimately chosen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 23rd June, 1959; c. 22.]
Have the Government had second thoughts about the announcement made
394
eight years ago? What are their present views? When are we to have the gallery? Will it be at least twenty-five years? We have never had answers to our questions on the subject. The Bill at least provides the means by which the gallery can be run. Surely the Minister can at least tell us what the Government have in view. How long are we to use Inverleith House, which the hon. Member himself admitted was only a temporary measure? How temporary?
Many people in Scotland would like to know this because we want this Scottish gallery of modern art quickly. At this time, eight years after the announcement was made about the Queen Street site, the Government ought to be able to tell us something more definite than we have been told during the previous proceedings on the Bill. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will answer some of the questions which I have asked him.
10.53 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said that it was not until five minutes before the Committee stage ended that he learned what the Bill does. Had he done me the honour of listening to what I said on Second Reading he would have heard me say that when we were considering the Order which would have to be laid prescribing the management of the new gallery as a function of the trustees.
"we noticed that the Section of the 1906 Act which provides for expenditure out of voted moneys does not cover expenditure on any new functions which may be conferred on the trustees; it covers only the expenditure on the management of the galleries then under their control, that is, the National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery".
Those provisions had been perfectly adequate for the fifty-three years during which the 1906 Act had existed. I went on to say:
"In any event the defect must be remedied before we can proceed further."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 4th June. 1959; c. 4.]
The sole purpose of the Bill is to make it possible for moneys provided by Parliament to be used to pay not only for the management of the National Gallery of Scotland and the National Portrait Gallery, which can be done under

395
the National Galleries of Scotland Act, 1906, but also to meet expenditure incurred toy the board of trustees in connection with
"the performance of such other functions as are conferred on them by or under this Act."
In the course of the proceedings in Committee it has been made clear that the new power conferred is of a general character and is not limited to any particular project. I gather that the hon. Member is still not satisfied that the Bill gives adequate financial powers to match the other provisions of the 1906 Act. I can assure him that it does.
He asked me several questions. The first concerned the functions which the Secretary of State proposed to give to the trustees. The genesis of the Bill was that the Secretary of State proposed to add to the functions of the trustees the management of a gallery of modern art at Inverleith House. This is the genesis of the Bill and what we have considered so far, but naturally the Secretary of State will continue to watch carefully to see whether there are any further administrative gaps—we trust that there will be no further legislative gaps—to be found, and no doubt if there are it will be possible for the Secretary of State if necessary to make an order to add further functions to the trustees of the National Galleries of Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government had had second thoughts about the Queen Street site. I thought I made it quite clear in Committee that the Government had not altered the proposal announced in 1951 by the late Mr. Hector McNeil, but that the Queen Street site is not at present available—
Mr. Willis: Does the Secretary of State intend to consider the many suggestions made during the Second Reading for the better display of pictures throughout Scotland? Are those arguments considered good? After all, they have since been reinforced by a very powerful Committee. Will the Secretary of State give the trustees the powers necessary to ensure that the pictures are more widely displayed?
Mr. Macpherson: If it is necessary to give the trustees any further powers to enable pictures to be exhibited, those powers can be made available, but, as
396
I explained earlier, we do not think that it is necessary. Since before the 1906 Act it has been customary to arrange for pictures belonging to the National Gallery and to the National Portrait Gallery to be shown elsewhere.
To sum up, I would just say that the financial provisions now made are wide enough to cover any functions whatever, whether conferred directly by the Act or prescribed under the Act, and whatever may be thought of the purposes that the Secretary of State may have prescribed at the present time there is no doubt at all that the Bill will give us the necessary legislative powers to meet any conceivable demand.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
Considered in Committee.
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
10.56 p.m.
The Chairman: This is a Consolidation Bill. If the Committee agrees, I shall put all the Clauses together.
Clauses 1 to 201 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 12 agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
10.58 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Fraser: Can the Joint Under-Secretary tell us why we are consolidating the licensing laws of Scotland? He will be well aware that there is much feeling in Scotland that they ought to be amended. I understand that I am not entitled now to discuss the various amendments that might be made to the Scottish licensing laws, but I think that I am entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman if he realises that the mere act of consolidating legislation gives the impression that Parliament is satisfied with these laws, yet there cannot be a single hon. Member from any part of Scotland who believes that these licensing

397
laws are all right as they are, or who would wish his constituents to think that we in Parliament are satisfied with them and are willing that they should be consolidated. Indeed, the Secretary of State had allowed the impression to gain currency in Scotland that he was anxious that there should be an independent inquiry—perhaps by a Royal Commission—into our licensing laws, and that he was well aware of their present shortcomings.
I know that very soon I should be outside the rules of order were I to discuss the shortcomings of our licensing laws, particularly in regard to Sunday drinking. But the present law is a scandal and none of us, so far as I am aware, knows of any good reason why we should be consolidating our licensing laws at the present time. I should have thought we would all be perfectly happy not to pass this Bill at all but to have this Bill withdrawn so that we might proceed as soon as may be to have a look at many of the abuses which take place under the law, which are quite legal but socially undesirable.
Could the Joint Under-Secretary tell us what is the reason for consolidating now? Would it not have been far better had he not troubled to engage a lot of highly skilled people to go through all the licensing laws throughout the years and to consolidate them in this Measure with a good many minor amendments and adjustments as are provided for under the consolidation Act of 1949? Would it not have been far better if he had got his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to set in motion the kind of inquiry which the people of Scotland are anxious to have, so that our licensing laws might be examined impartially and dispassionately and so that we might have some recommendations from an impartial committee as to the kind of amendments that we should make after we had done that? We might very well have consolidated all that was good in our licensing laws.
11.2 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I am surprised to hear the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) object at any time to the consolidation of the law, but when we get the law of licensing such as it is in Scotland, covering some 17 enactments and going back as far as 1871, one would have thought it was high time that the law of licensing was consolidated.
Mr. A. Woodburn: Is not my hon. Friend's point rather different? We recognise that the law is going to be consolidated, but we are also informed that the Secretary of State is going to start to amend it shortly. At least, that is the understanding. Would it not be a sensible thing, if he is going to amend it after an inquiry, that the consolidation should be held up until we decide what will be the final picture of the licensing laws?
Mr. Macpherson: I do not think it would be in order for me to discuss any future changes which might be made in the existing law.
I was going to say that the consolidation of the law has three advantages. The first is that it is helpful to the licensing courts. The second is that it is useful to all those who have to refer to the law in the course of their business to have it in one easily accessible form, even though it does have 201 Clauses. The third is that the fact that the law will now be set out in one Measure will certainly not make it more difficult to make any changes which it may be thought necessary to contemplate at any time in the future.
From all these points of view, the consolidation of the law will be of considerable value. Therefore, I have no hesitation in commending the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

ROADS (PARKING SCHEMES)
11.4 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Richard Nugent): I beg to move,
That the Parking Places (Extension outside London No. 1) Order, 1959, dated 6th May, 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved.
The effect of this Order is to extend to a number of provincial cities and towns the powers in the Road Traffic Act, 1956, to promote parking schemes. At present these powers are enjoyed only by Metropolitan boroughs and the City of London. If Parliament approves this Order, the ten local authorities listed in Article 2 of the Order will then be free to propose parking schemes if they wish, but their proposals will still have to go through the procedure with which we are all already familiar in London, as set out in the Third Schedule of the 1956 Act. That is to say, each scheme will still have to be officially published and brought to the notice of neighbouring residents and traders. Objections may be lodged and, if necessary, the Minister can order a public inquiry to be held, appointing an independent inspector for the purpose, who will report to him on the merits of a particular scheme before he decides whether to approve it and lay it before Parliament.
In effect, this Order does no more than put the specified local authorities mentioned in the Order in the same position as the Metropolitan boroughs, which can already promote parking meter schemes. For each of the ten cities or towns mentioned in the Order, we have called for reports from our divisional road engineers as to the general nature of the traffic congestion and so on and whether it appeared that there was a case for a controlled parking scheme.
The reports in each case have satisfied us that such a case does exist. Indeed, some of the cities concerned applied some months ago for power to promote schemes but we withheld giving power until we were satisfied that the first scheme—that in the city of Westminster—had shown its merits. I think hon. Members will agree that it has shown itself to be a successful measure
400
in the right place, benefiting traffic movement and road safety and providing short-term parking facilities, and that most people have come to the conclusion that meter schemes are a real benefit when applied in the right circumstances. It is significant also that the second scheme, for St. Marylebone, was recently passed by the House. We felt, therefore, that the time had come to allow provincial cities to promote similar schemes. Already we are receiving applications from other towns; and from time to time we shall come along with other Orders to give other towns the chance to promote these schemes.
In these circumstances, I commend this Order to the House.
11.8 p.m.
Mr. Ernest Davies: It seems to me that in considering the Motion before the House we have to decide whether this power, giving the Minister the right to designate parking places in these ten towns, should be given in view of the fact that an experiment has been going on for parking on the highway in London.
The Parliamentary Secretary has just told us that the scheme has been a success in London and, presumably, because it is a success and because there is a parking problem in these ten other towns, the Minister should have the power to enable local authorities to submit schemes for the approval of the House. The hon. Gentleman has said that, by and large, the experiment has been interesting and instructive and mainly successful. I think that the House would agree; but there are some qualifications.
The scheme has been a qualified success, and I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman to what extent the lessons learned in London will be applied in the provinces. To what extent, when the Minister considers the Orders placed before him for approval, can he influence these provincial cities in applying the lessons which have been learned, or should have been learned, in London? Can he use his influence, through consultation, persuasion and the like, to ensure that certain requirements which I consider necessary to the success of parking schemes, which it is proposed to extend to these areas, are met?
Those requirements include the need that schemes in all these cities should be

401
sufficiently comprehensive. In London, no doubt, parking meters had to be started on a small scale to see how they worked, but it quickly became evident that as the initial scheme in Westminster was so limited, parking congestion became so great in the neighbouring areas that the scheme needed to be extended; and that is being done.
I therefore ask the Minister, when he designates the parking schemes in the provinces, if we grant him the Order, whether he will be able to ensure that the schemes which are put up to him and which he embraces in orders will be sufficiently comprehensive that the congestion in neighbouring areas is not so great that the gain in the small areas where parking meters are installed is outweighed by the added congestion outside.
The second requirement is that there must be not only enforcement of the regulations concerning the parking meters, but enforcement of parking regulations in the neighbouring areas. It would be pointless to grant the Minister this power tonight unless he were convinced that the enforcement of parking regulations will be full and effective. That is something which clearly, here in London, has not accompanied the parking-meter schemes. Unfortunately, in the cities that we are considering, particularly Birmingham, the parking and no-waiting regulations are not observed and are not enforced any more than they are in London. If parking-meter schemes do not make their contribution in this way, I doubt whether charging for parking on the highway gives any effective easement of the parking problem.
Therefore, when it is decided to extend parking-meter schemes to these towns, will there first be consultation with the authorities, the watch committees and the chief constables, about how they will effectively enforce the law and see that the motorist observes it? If there is added congestion in areas adjacent to parking schemes, enforcement becomes more difficult. Once that happens, motorists ignore the regulations and it is difficult to know how to ensure that the law will be obeyed. I therefore suggest that before powers are given to these cities, at least there should be full and effective consultation with responsible authorities to ensure that schemes will be sufficiently comprehensive that
402
by their observance and enforcement they will be fully effective.
The third and, perhaps, most important requirement on which we must be satisfied before agreeing to extend parking schemes of this nature is that there must be provision for off-street parking. When the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee drew up its survey on car parking a few years ago and recommended that parking meters should be installed in certain areas of London, one of the requirements put forward by the Committee was that there must be provision for off-street parking at the same time as parking meters were installed.
The Parliamentary Secretary will remember full well that when debates took place on the 1956 Act, under which this Order is being made, assurances were given that as soon as the parking meter schemes were in operation and the money was being raised from the fees charged that money would be devoted, as it has to be under the Act, to the provision of off-street parking. I hope that if this Order is approved the Minister will see that these city authorities do consider in advance what off-street parking can be provided. That would be a lesson learned from London. As far as I am aware, since the schemes have come into effect in London there has not been a single additional off-street car space provided by Westminster City Council. We know that there is a scheme now for a garage, but as far as the Council is concerned, after nine months no extra space has been provided.
Under parking meter schemes the amount of car space on the highways is drastically reduced—by between one-third and one-half. Consequently, unless there is provision off the streets there is increased congestion and the motorist is put to added and unnecessary inconvenience. It may well be that as these schemes are extended it will be found that off-street parking cannot be provided without subsidies from the local authorities and, possibly, from the central Government. That may be worth while to keep traffic, which is the life-blood of any city, flowing.
So it is the duty of the Minister, if these powers are granted, to see that provision is made at the outset for a

403
right and reasonable balance between parking meters and off-street parking. Vehicles displaced by these schemes must be provided for elsewhere to the extent that this is physically possible, even if ultimately money for the purpose has to be provided by the authorities concerned, in addition to money raised from the meters.
Parking meter schemes are justified only if, overall, the parking problem is eased, and it cannot be eased unless there is provision for off-street parking and for the enforcement and observance of parking regulations generally. That means that the parking regulations have got to be accepted as reasonable by the motorist so that there is co-operation between the motorist and the police.
As we were being asked to extend to the Minister powers to enable him to designate parking schemes which provide for charging on the highway, I would ask if he is fully satisfied that adequate consideration has been given to alternative methods and that he is sure it is preferable to proceed with this rather permanent form of charging on the highway through meters, on which capital has to be spent. He is aware that a major alternative is the Paris blue disc scheme, which I shall not discuss tonight. But has full consideration been given to experimenting with such a scheme in at least one of these cities? The blue disc scheme, whereby a disc is put in the windscreen of the car by the motorist and the time is designated on the clock, is working reasonably well in Paris, although there are a great number of offences committed and a large number of people are necessary to enforce the scheme.
Mr. Speaker: This Order allows only for the provision of parking places, for payment, on the streets. We cannot discuss all the possible alternatives.
Mr. Davies: I shall not pursue this. I can see the point. The blue discs, of course, can be sold, but that is not part of this scheme. I thought that it would be in order to refer to alternatives before we decided on one method, but I certainly abide by your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I shall not challenge it or pursue the matter, but the Minister might be able to say what consideration
404
has been given to possible alternatives before the decision was taken to lay this Order.
Whilst in principle the extension of these parking schemes to the major cities of England can be accepted, it does not of itself constitute a solution to the parking problem. These designated parking places may help in the solution, but the solution depends upon a great number of other factors. As I have indicated, the main factor is that parking regulations as a whole shall be reasonable and enforceable and therefore observed, and that there shall be not only an easement of traffic flow by altering the flow on the highways but provision for the vehicles displaced from those highways.
11.22 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: As a matter of interest, arising from what the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has just said, I was told only this morning by a Cornish constituent that he had made inuiries about the provision of additional off-street parking in the City of Westminster by private enterprise. He had inquired from Westminster City Council whether, if he provided such off-street parking it was possible for him to obtain assistance towards the cost of doing so from the parking meter scheme. Although I understand that the Council had no definite proposal at the moment, he was told that that was the ultimate intention. Therefore, it is premature to criticise the parking meter scheme for not providing additional off-street parking space.
Mr. Ernest Davies: Can the hon. Member say what additional off-street parking has been provided since the meter scheme came into operation?
Mr. Speaker: We are not discussing off-street parking but parking meters.
Mr. Wilson: Yes, but, with respect, the Road Traffic Act, 1956, provided that meters should produce money from which a council should subsidise off-street parking. This Order extends the provision of parking meters to the cities mentioned, including Bristol and Derby, for example. I understood the hon. Member for Enfield, East to criticise that because it was no good extending the Order to apply to those cities when in Westminster,

405
where the Act operated, no additional parking was provided. I therefore mentioned the instance brought to my notice this morning where it was proposed that additional parking should be provided in Westminster with the financial help of the parking meters.
The inference is that if the Order were extended to Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool and other cities, additional off-street parking would be provided in those places also. The hon. Member for Enfield, East will have seen the ring road in Birmingham and will know that off-street parking will be provided there. Parking meters by themselves will not be enough. The extension of this experiment to other cities might be valuable because it may succeed in some places better than others. It will be a good thing to try it in different areas, with different circumstances, because in some cases it may be found that off-street parking may be provided more easily than in others as a result of the installation of parking meters.
Some of us have seen the traffic conditions in the cities referred to, and they vary considerably, and if these cities are allowed, in addition to their other methods of dealing with traffic, to have parking meters it is something which we should welcome, and we should pass the Order.
I will not make any comment on any other methods that one might use because that would be beyond the scope of the Order and you have observed, Mr. Speaker, that the blue disc scheme is hardly a matter to be mentioned now, but apart from the merits or demerits of blue discs I see no reason why we should not extend the provision of parking meters to the cities mentioned in the Order.
11.26 p.m.
Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: I think that what I have to say might equally well be said on the subsequent Order, which deals with the extension of these provisions to Scotland. We are discussing the two Orders together—
Mr. Speaker: No. The second Order has not been moved.
Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I was saying that my remarks could equally well be made on the subsequent Order, but I was about to say, Mr. Speaker, that it would perhaps be more in order for
406
me to make them now as the Minister responsible for these matters in the Cities of Westminster and London is here and has already spoken.
I share with the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) the feeling that the London experiments have not been as completely successful as my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary would suggest. I do not for one moment claim that owners of property should be insulated against the effects of normal changes in the character of a district, but where those changes are brought about by Government action, and where they could not, therefore, be foreseen even by a prudent property owner, then I think we want to look rather carefully at the matter.
I refer particularly to the designation as parking places of areas outside private property which has undoubtedly in the City of Westminster led to a great loss of amenity by private owners of property and a considerable depreciation in value. That has not been the case in business areas, but it has definitely been the case in residential areas.
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter which should have been discussed when we were debating the Road Traffic Act, 1956, giving the Minister this power.
Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but what we are seeking to do tonight is to extend these powers to Birmingham and other cities, and I am suggesting that we ought to be careful before allowing these powers to other cities to ensure that some of the features of the London experiments are not repeated in those cities.
I have mentioned the difficulties in central residential areas in London. There are aso difficulties in suburban areas where there has been the experience of kerbside parking, particularly near suburban stations throughout the day, making it impossible for residents to get to their own properties because cars are parked locked along the kerb near the station by commuters to London. I mention these points not because I seek to dissent from the Order—I think it right that these powers should be given—but because we ought to point to the difficulties which have arisen hoping that they will not arise in future cases.
11.29 p.m.
Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Now that powers are being taken to extend the parking meter schemes to the provinces, there are one or two details that it is worth mentioning as lessons from London.
One complaint that I have received—I have suffered from it myself—is that if one puts Is. into the meter one gets two hours of parking time but if one puts 6d. in one gets only an hour and at the end of the hour, the meter immediately jumps to the 10s. penalty. I cannot see why one should not be able to put a second 6d. into the meter, for which there is no provision at the moment, so that one could get the full two hours before the machine jumped to the 10s. penalty.
The second point is that in Mayfair it is obviously a concomitant of the parking meter scheme that there is a control zone in which the police are supposed to drive parked cars off the road. But they cannot do so at present in that zone because there are no off-street parking places for the motorists to go to. Therefore, it is quite obvious that the erection of any parking meters in the centre of a crowded city requires that off-street parking places should be made available at the same time. That has been realised all along. The Westminster City Council has a plan for erecting a parking garage in North Audley Street at the cost of £500,000, a great deal of money.
Of course, it has always been visualised that the surplus money from the parking meters should be devoted to the cost of these off-street parking garages. We have recently learned, of course, that the surplus money from the meters is going to be subject to tax. Personally, I think that is a great scandal because it was stated by two or three Ministers during the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill that the whole surplus from the meters was to be devoted to the building of off-street parking spaces. To my mind, it was quite wrong of the Treasury suddenly to announce that the money is now going to be taxed.
A good deal of capital expenditure is required in putting up these parking meters throughout the provinces and in London and in connection with the erection of off-street parking spaces, which are a concomitant of the meters. As was
408
mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley), a good deal of inconvenience is caused to the occupiers of property adjacent to where parking meters are erected. All these things represent the adverse side of the scheme. I am not opposing the scheme, but they are disadvantages.
I should have liked to have seen one of the cities adopting the Paris blue disc scheme so as to avoid these disadvantages. I would like to see an experiment carried out on those lines, subject, of course, to the details which I have mentioned. I should be interested if my hon. Friend would answer the practical point which I made about the jumping of the parking meter to the 10s. penalty at the end of the hour for which 6d. had been inserted in the meter.
Subject to the points which I have made, I have no doubt that the House will pass this Order and extend it to the provinces.
Mr. W. F. Deedes: May I ask my hon. Friend one question about the Order arising out of the point on enforcement? He will be aware that the relations of these authorities with the police are somewhat different from our relations with the Metropolitan Police. Is my hon. Friend able to make it clear that in enforcement these local authorities will not be in a position to use their local police forces but will be required to use uniformed or other sorts of attendants according to their choice? What is going to be the position of the police forces of these local authorities under the Order?
11.34 p.m.
Mr. Nugent: May I have the permission of the House to reply to the points that have been put to me?
The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) asked me some questions about whether we could influence the provincial cities to benefit from the lessons of London. The answer is that we can to a limited extent. We are preparing a memorandum of guidance which will be sent to all local authorities, and to those of these ten cities and towns in particular, which will be a guide to them about parking meter practice based on our London experience. I feel sure that that will be

409
a help to these ten cities, and, indeed, to others which are contemplating permitting parking meter schemes in the future. That memorandum will be going out very shortly and will cover all the lessons that we have learned from our London experience.
We cannot of course oblige cities to promote their orders in this form, but I am sure they will welcome such guidance as they will get from the memorandum and, at the end of the day, it is for my right hon. Friend to determine whether there shall be a local inquiry and decide whether he will approve an Order and lay it before the House. If the scheme is hopelessly out of line with what seems practicable, my right hon. Friend will certainly use his powers and not approve it.
With regard to the question of the size of scheme, to which the hon. Member referred, local authorities will be advised as to our experience. The point he made is very germane, that if the area is too small the full benefits of the scheme will not be obtained. We shall have to see what size schemes they put up, but we shall give the best guidance we can.
The hon. Member was, of course, perfectly right about enforcement. In themselves these schemes could be perfectly useless unless they are properly enforced. The Metropolitan Police fully understand that. On the whole, enforcement has been good in the Northwest corner of Westminster where the scheme has been tried out.
We have left the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police in no doubt that as the schemes spread there will be additional burdens in enforcement and that to make them really effective the enforcement must be effective. I believe that the police are fully prepared to accept the heavy additional responsibilities which will fall on them in London and, no doubt, in the provincial cities the police are similarly prepared. One of the requirements of the Third Schedule is that the police shall be consulted in each case before a scheme is promoted so that in each of these cities, before a scheme can be promoted, the authority will have had to consult with the police to make sure that enforcement will be effective.
410
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), the police will continue to have their functions of enforcement of the law. As to who will be responsible for administration of the meters, that is a matter for the cities concerned, but I presume that they will appoint attendants in the same way as Westminster has done. We are all aware that there has been a great deal of discussion about an alternative approach, by means of traffic wardens who might cover some of these functions. Personally that is an idea I very much favour. I know there are all kinds of difficulties attached to it, but it might be a considerable help. I cannot say more about it now, but our minds are very open to that solution.
Of course, my right hon. Friend must have regard to off-street parking provisions before he approves an order. Section 19 requires that. A number of these cities plans for increasing off-street parking facilities and most of them have a fair amount already. The divisional road engineers have given an indication of what facilities there are by making preliminary reports and most cities have plans for increasing them. These provincial cities are much better placed than Metropolitan boroughs which are making this provision. In the main they are much stronger financially than the Metropolitan borough which has a relatively small area. It is much easier for them to contemplate raising loans to finance these projects than for Metropolitan boroughs. It is certainly a problem for some of them.
My personal view is that as these schemes spread and the police make enforcement effective, the demand for off-street parking by those who want to leave their cars in the centre of towns, whether London or elsewhere, will be such that private enterprise, too, will supply it. Nobody will risk their money in private enterprise ventures when there is the alternative of parking in the street for nothing. I think that we shall get some help in that direction, and I have already heard of one or two quite likely inquiries in London and in these provincial cities, too.
The hon. Member asked whether we had given the fullest consideration to possible alternatives in extending the scheme for the control of parking, which

411
means in the main by parking meters, to provincial cities. Here I must go carefully, Mr. Speaker, if I am not to get into "the black", although I shall not go very far into "the blue". We have collected fresh information about the possible alternatives and we believe that the parking meter scheme is the best scheme, but that does not mean that my right hon. Friend and I have closed our minds to an alternative. If any of these cities proposes an alternative similar to the Paris scheme we shall be quite ready to consider it, although it would need legislation to introduce it. At present none has suggested such an alternative.
Mr. Ernest Davies: Why would fresh legislation be required? If the blue disc scheme were introduced and charges made, surely that would come within the 1956 Act.
Mr. Nugent: I am advised that it would not and that fresh and complicated legislation would be necessary for a scheme of that nature. That does not mean that our minds are closed to it, but first we must find a town willing to promote such a scheme, and although one or two have considered it, in the end they have decided, for one reason or another, that it would not be appropriate. That is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke). So far no town has offered to make an experiment, but our minds are still open to such experiments if they are offered.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) for supporting the general principle, which I personally feel sure is right, of extending the scheme to provincial cities. My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) said there was depreciation of property because cars are left, locked, standing all day, by commuters outside private residences. To some extent this is mitigated by parking meter schemes because at least the cars will not be standing there all day. They cannot stand there for more than a couple of hours. To that extent there is an improvement. I think that the general principle was well and fully debated in the debates on the Bill, and this principle was acceptable to the House provided that the circumstances were right. I think
412
that the London experiment has proved that it is generally beneficial and we are therefore justified in extending it to provincial cities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham asked why he should not be allowed to place an extra 6d. in the meter after he had put one in, so that he could leave his car an extra hour without having to pay the excess penalty of 10s. One of the difficulties in the administration of parking meters is to prevent what is called feeding in, by which the owner, having put his car by a meter, slips out every couple of hours and puts in another Is. and so leaves the car there all day. That is quite difficult to police. If it were legitimate to put in an extra sixpence, illegitimate feeding in after the two-hour period would be difficult to detect. Therefore, although I sympathise with my hon. Friend in his plea, I am afraid that it cannot be met. My hon. Friend must make up his mind, when going to the meter, whether he wants to stay for one hour or two, and put in his 6d. or Is. accordingly.
My hon. Friend also asked why the meter revenue is subject to tax. It is subject to tax only if treated on its own. If the meter revenues were used in combination with the financing of off-street garages, those revenues would very rapidly be swallowed up by the losses made in operating the garages, so there would be no question of tax liability arising. The present structure is such that there is the greatest possible incentive for local authorities which are collecting meter revenue to build some off-street garages and to use the revenue from their meters to help finance the garages. In effect, provided they do what the Act asks them to do, there will be no question of tax—
Mr. Gresham Cooke: If the Westminster Council has to borrow £500,000 to build such a place in North Audley Street, would it be able to set off parking meter revenue against the interest on the borrowed money? Is that my hon. Friend's interpretation?
Mr. Nugent: That is undoubtedly so, but naturally the two operations have to be combined in an ordinary profit and loss account. That is the general principle. But my point is that, normally, local authorities will find their receipts

413
from operating the off-street garages will not be sufficient to meet their cost, even with the help of the revenue from the meters. The question of profit will not therefore arise once they start to provide the off-street garages, as we want them to do.
I hope that with this explanation the House will be prepared to approve the Order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Parking Places (Extension outside London No. 1) Order, 1959, dated 6th May, 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved.
11.48 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I beg to move.
That the Parking Places (Scotland) (No. 1) Order, 1959, dated 4th May, 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved.
Just as Section 19 (7) of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, provides that the Minister, with the approval of Parliament, may by Order apply Section 19 (1) to any area in England, so Section 19 (8) of the Act provides that the Secretary of State, with the approval of Parliament, may by Order apply Section 19 (1) to any area in Scotland.
The purpose of the present Order is to apply subsection (1) to the County of the City of Edinburgh. If approved, it will be the first step in a procedure that will ultimately enable the Secretary of State, on the application of the Edinburgh Corporation, to designate parking places on highways for vehicles in Edinburgh, and to enable the Corporation to make charges for vehicles left in those parking places. The next step will be for Edinburgh to apply for an Order under Section 19 (1) of the 1956 Act.
In Scotland, only Edinburgh has so far applied for an enabling order. Parliament has already approved in principle that parking meters should be provided in suitable areas, and the effect of the Order, if made, will be to give Parliamentary endorsement to Edinburgh Corporation's view that that city is a suitable area. At a later stage, the House may wish to examine in detail the places where Edinburgh proposes to put the meters, but that will not arise until
414
a subsequent order is applied for by the Edinburgh Corporation.
The procedure for the local authority to make application is laid down in the Third Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, and the order designating the parking places will be subject to negative Resolution procedure. The House will thus have a full opportunity of discussing the details then. All we are asking tonight is that the House should make it possible for Edinburgh to prepare and submit a scheme for parking places under Section 19 (1) of the 1956 Act.
11.50 p.m.
Mr. A. Woodburn: I should like some information from the Joint Under-Secretary. The Order says nothing about parking meters. It authorises the Secretary of State in due course to authorise the City of Edinburgh to make charges for parking in the City. I am not going into the question whether parking meters will be obligatory when the Order is passed, but I gather they will not be and that the Secretary of State may make some other order under another part of the relevant Section of the Act.
On the question of charging for parking places in Edinburgh, I think everyone who has had any experience of Edinburgh will agree that something is necessary to stop the complete occupation of the streets by parked cars. I cannot understand how shopkeepers in Edinburgh are able to carry on their business in a normal way today, because nobody coming into Edinburgh from outside by car can stop at any shop in the centre of the city in order to make a purchase.
Edinburgh is completely occupied. In George Street the sides and the centre of the street are occupied, and so are the sides of Princes Street. If a person wants to shop by car he has to go out of Edinburgh and find a part of the pavement where he can stop. That has arisen because the occupants of cars drive to their business premises in the morning, and park their cars in the streets until their offices close in the evening. This problem is especially important in Edinburgh because we expect visitors to arrive from all over the world, not only at the time of the Festival but all through the summer season.

415
This question of parking cars all day has become an appalling problem for the police, shopkeepers and everyone else. There is no dispute about the necessity to do something about it. What we do not understand is why it is necessary to have the streets covered with parking meters. I should like the Under-Secretary to give us an idea of what is contemplated. Is the whole of Charlotte Square to have a circle of parking meters? I should imagine that there might be 200 cars parked in Charlotte Square on a Saturday forenoon. There must be several hundred cars along George Street. There must be another 200 or 300 cars in St. Andrew's Square. Does it mean that wherever a car is parked there is going to be a parking meter? Edinburgh has fortunately got rid of the electric tram wires that disfigured it for so many years. But is the whole of Edinburgh to be disfigured by these little pillars standing along George Street, round Charlotte Square, St. Andrew's Square and along Princes Street, or what is contemplated under this Order?
At present, every motorist is charged for a parking place in Edinburgh, not by the corporation but by parking attendants. They work a system of their own, which is quite effective, and they collect money from the motorists. I do not see any reason why money should not be collected from the motorists for the corporation. Even if we have parking meters, somebody has still got to see that fines are collected if a motorist breaks the law. In other words, we have got to have enforcement.
Everyone who goes to the seaside knows that there are plenty of places where one is charged so much an hour for sitting on a seat. I think at Brighton, Margate and such places collectors issue tickets and come round again after a certain period has elapsed. One is allowed an hour or two as the case may be; but that has to be done, even if the parking meter is there. The police are present to enforce the waiting times—I think a motorist is allowed ten minutes—and if the period is longer than that they warn the motorist. They are very polite about it, but my point is that it is just as easy to collect the money without these meters if only we have a proper system.
416
What I wish to ask is what alternatives will be considered before permission is given for Edinburgh to be cluttered up with parking meters? If the meters are to be around Charlotte Square, it will mean cluttering up George Street and Princes Street with cars. It seems to me that it will solve no problem. I agree that those people who leave cars all day should have to rent part of the street and that those using cars for shopping and other purposes should be able to use the streets freely. It will be very helpful if we can have some more information.
A good many alternatives should be considered. The Waverley Market is unoccupied for much of the week and it might be possible to take a lot of the cars off the street and charge for parking there. There was a scheme for using part of the Princes Street Gardens near the Waverley Bridge for parking purposes. Put a parking place under the gardens, dig into the ivy and put the cars out of sight, with some chance of making a substantial clearance of the streets. If the Joint Under-Secretary of State will give us a picture of Edinburgh in the future, we shall be better able to judge the best way for us to proceed in this matter.
11.58 p.m.
Mr. E. G. Willis: This Order is for the purpose of carrying out decisions made by the magistrates in Edinburgh in respect of a certain area of the new town. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) has said, these very fine streets in the new town of Edinburgh have become almost impassable and the magistrates have recommended to the Corporation a scheme covering George Street, St. Andrew's Square, Charlotte Square, and the adjacent streets. Yet, I am not so certain that my right hon. Friend is correct in all the fears which he has expressed tonight. I understand that the parking should be mainly concentrated around the centre of the Charlotte Square; in which case, I am not so sure that parking meters would disfigure it. After all, we already have iron railings round the square and, in my view, parking meters on the same site will not tend to disfigure it much more. The same applies to St. Andrew's Square, and in George Street I understand that the parking will be centre parking.
Mr. Woodburn: Yes, but instead of the little pillars, could not parking meters be built into the pavement, so that they will not be a disfigurement when vehicles are not parked there?
Mr. Willis: Unfortunately, we do not have these other things and the traffic problem in Edinburgh is urgent. We cannot wait very long, because our traffic is already throttled along George Street and in practically every street leading up to it. Therefore, we must do something quickly.
If it were possible to have something other than parking meters and to get it fairly quickly, I would agree; but I am not certain that the fears expressed by my right hon. Friend are altogether justified. In any case, Edinburgh being Edinburgh, there will, no doubt, be a big dispute that will occupy columns of the Press concerning the placing of further street furniture in the new town. My right hon. Friend can be assured of that and that all the arguments will be brought to bear so far as they relate to this matter before the scheme is finally approved.
One or two things occur to me when I consider the scheme for Edinburgh. I hope that the scheme does not go down into Princes Street. I understand that the proposals that have been made do not include Princes Street. I hope that the Secretary of State will ensure that that does not happen, first, because of the need for people to draw up to the shopping side, and secondly, for the purpose of the through traffic that uses Princes Street in considerable volume.
It was mentioned in the previous debate that if we are to have this scheme in the new town, obviously the Corporation must provide off-street parking places. At present, I understand, the Corporation has it in mind to do something at the top of Leith Street and around Edinburgh Castle to provide additional parking facilities, for which there would be no parking charges and which would not be subject to the normal police regulation. I am not certain, however, that that is enough.
There are considerable older properties in the centre part of the town, between George Street and Princes Street and between George Street and Queen Street, some of which could come down and the space used either as parking
418
places or for the building of garages. At the time when it was suggested that we should have public parking places under or in Princes Street Gardens, it was discovered as the result of a survey that there were 200 vacant garage places in the centre of the town. I do not know whether that would cope with the cars that will be moved from the centre as a result of the scheme which causes this Order to be placed before us. I very much doubt it. In any event, that amount of garage space is available.
In addition, the Edinburgh Corporation must consider the question of off-street parking much more urgently than it has done so far. Anyone who is familiar with the area knows that with the introduction of the parking-meter scheme to be sanctioned under the Order, people will drift further down the hill. We shall then simply have transferred the parking problem from George Street down to Herriot Road and further down. These streets themselves are becoming important through streets in Edinburgh. That is one of the urgent needs in Edinburgh.
I hope that in the solving of any of these problems that arise as a result of the introduction of the scheme and as a result of the fact that more and more cars come into the centre of the town, there will be no suggestion that either the public gardens or the private gardens, or Queen Street Gardens or any of the other amenities in the centre of the town, will be used for the purpose of providing parking places. We can, I think, solve this problem in Edinburgh without destroying the amenities that we possess and I sincerely trust that on no account will pressures be exerted on the Corporation to take over any of these open spaces for that purpose.
Dealing with the previous Order, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation said that he was circularising local authorities concerned with the results of the scheme in the West End of London, and the lessons that had been learned. Is that also to be done for local authorities in Scotland? Other local authorities might be considering schemes. I do not know whether Glasgow may. in the end, have to consider a scheme. Certainly, Edinburgh wishes to.
12.5 a.m.
Mr. Tom Fraser: Could the Joint Under-Secretary say why this Order is confined to the City of Edinburgh? I gather that it is because Edinburgh has asked that this Order might be made to enable it to submit a detailed scheme which would be subject to discussion in the House at a later date. In preparing the Order I would have thought that the Secretary of State would have consulted other cities, if not the large burghs, and, in particular, the City of Glasgow where the parking problem is probably more serious than in Edinburgh. If he had extended this Order to Glasgow it would not have put any obligation on Glasgow to bring forward an application for a further Order to identify the places where the authorities wanted charges to be made. Will the Joint Under-Secretary say whether the Secretary of State has consulted Glasgow and the other cities, and if not, why not?
12.7 a.m.
Mr. N. Macpherson: If I may deal with the last question first, I would say that the lessons learned from the Mayfair experiment have been discussed with various authorities, and Edinburgh is the only one which at the moment has expressed a desire for the provisions of the Statute to be extended to it. It is just as well to have a pilot scheme in Scotland, as in England. As the English pilot scheme has been in the Metropolis it is not incongruous that in Scotland, too, it should be in the capital.
Regarding the circulation of the lessons learned in Mayfair, this is being done and will continue to be done. We have not yet had a complete year with the Mayfair scheme.
I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) what alternatives are to be considered before the Secretary of State agrees to a parking-meter scheme. Unlike one of his hon. Friends, the right hon Gentleman expressed some doubt about the possibility of preserving amenities with a parking scheme. The only alternative that can be considered under the Act is provided for in Section 20 (5), which states:
"Where no such apparatus is in use, the order designating a parking place may provide
420
that the initial charge shall be payable on the vehicle being taken away from the parking place…."
and so on. That is the only alternative that can be considered under the Act. But, as my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation said, if any other proposals are put forward they would be considered, but they would require legislation, and it might be complicated legislation. They would require legislation to enable charges to be made.
Mr. T. Fraser: I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and could not understand him. Section 20 (4) of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, says:
"If it is so provided in the order designating the parking place, there shall be apparatus of the prescribed description …"
But only "if", and I should have thought that under Section 20 the Secretary of State can prescribe the apparatus, and under subsection (5), where no such apparatus is in use, a charge can be made for a standard period. Why, therefore, does the Under-Secretary say that if an Order is to be made without apparatus of a prescribed description being in use new legislation is needed?
Mr. Macpherson: All I can say is that the advice given to us is that that is the case. The hon. Member is putting the emphasis in the wrong place. It should be on the words
"…there shall be apparatus of the prescribed description …"
I can only tell the House of the advice I have been given. We are advised, for example, that if there is a proposal that there should be a scheme such as the blue disc scheme operating in Paris, it would require legislation.
Mr. Woodburn: Perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary would ask some of the Scottish lawyers to look at this and get it put right.
Mr. Macpherson: The Scottish lawyers have already given the same advice as the English lawyers have given the Minister. The right hon. Member will see that subsection (5) goes on to say:
"…where such provision is made subsection (3) of this section shall apply with the substitution, for the reference to the period for which payment was made by the initial charge, of a reference to the standard period."

421
In other words, there can be a standard period and a charge made. That is the alternative under the Act, but we were talking about other alternatives. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) wants to interrupt more than is necessary. His right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire asked what alternatives there were, and I said there was only one under the Act. I specified what it was and said what others would involve.
In reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), I would say that there is general agreement that something must be done about traffic in Edinburgh. There is parking space in the central area for approximately 1,000 vehicles, and private parking space is negligible. When a count was taken in July, 1955, it showed that over a period of five hours 60,000 vehicles entered or left the centre of the city—and there is space for 1,000 to park. In addition, as the hon. Member mentioned, the Corporation has in mind to provide authorised parking space for a further 500 vehicles near the central area in Castle Terrace.
I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to go into details as to where it is intended to provide parking space. The Corporation has not yet expressed a final view on the matter. It would be appropriate to leave discussion of that until we consider the Order if, at a later date, Edinburgh applies for an Order to be made. I think that this short debate has shown that there is abundant support for extending these powers to Edinburgh. Indeed the hon. Member for Hamilton has asked why they were not extended still further. I do not think that the House will find any difficulty in agreeing to the Order.
12.14 a.m.
Mr. William Ross: We should have some information. No doubt it may be desirable, but why has Edinburgh been selected? Is it simply because Edinburgh asked? [An. HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] Surely there has been some investigation into what exactly would happen as the result of the application of this Order.
We have not been given any such information tonight. What we have been given is what we already knew—that
422
there is a parking problem in Edinburgh and in many towns and cities over the country. From past debates we know that one of the results of Edinburgh using this power in respect of parking places and introducing meters will be to reduce the actual number of cars which will be parked at any one time. I am concerned about that situation.
Surely the Government must be satisfied that the overall problem will be eased by the action of Edinburgh in using these powers. I know that this is only the first stage and that later we shall have an opportunity of finding out the details of what is proposed in the way of parking places with meters, but surely we should be given some idea of the Government's intentions in giving local authorities these enabling powers and told whether any conditions are to be attached about how the overall parking problem is eventually to be met. In other words, do we glibly give these powers to Edinburgh and then equally easily pass through the House some detailed scheme without any relation at all to how overall parking facilities, either on the street or off the street, are to be provided in Edinburgh?
A lot depends on where these places are. While the present situation may be a nuisance for shoppers and so on, we have equally to realise that the centre of Edinburgh is a matter of tourist attraction and it is not always possible to estimate how long sightseeing will take. I remember going to Edinburgh Castle and leaving the car outside, but it took us much longer than two hours to get round the Castle because there was a holiday in Glasgow and there was a long queue.
Mr. Willis: There is to be private car parking space at or around the Castle.
Mr. Ross: Yes, without parking meters.
Mr. Willis: Off-street parking.
Mr. Ross: That is feasible, but I was pointing out that one cannot estimate how long it will take to see the sights and glories of Edinburgh, and the glories of Edinburgh can be viewed, as my hon. Friend well knows, from places within very easy reach of the actual parking sites which are to be suggested for designation.

423
While I do not think any husband will object to having to tell his wife, "We have only an hour to get out of Princes Street," it may well be that many shopkeepers and certainly many of the would-be customers from overseas will be hampered, and we should look very carefully at the question of provision near the shopping centre as a condition of any further procedure in respect of off-street parking.
From the points of view of the tourist, the visitor, the shopkeeper and the popularity of Edinburgh with motorists, it is absolutely essential that this should be done, and I am sorry that the Joint Under-Secretary did not make it clear that he was concerned too about the wellbeing of the city in respect of that. I only want to ask the hon. Gentleman if I am right in assuming that, before anything more is done, we shall need a designation by the Edinburgh Corporation, that that will have to come back to this House and that we shall have an opportunity to discuss further just what exactly is to be done on a more detailed basis.
12.20 a.m.
Mr. G. Wilson: I do not wish to delay the House, but as an English Member whose father was born in Edinburgh I should hate to think that the people of Edinburgh were suffering under the Road Traffic Act. The parking meter provisions of that Act were expressly designed not only to reduce the time for which parking took place in particular streets, but also to provide money for off-street parking so that there would be more and not less space.
The experience in all parts of the world has been that whenever parking meters have been introduced there has been apprehension that they would produce all sorts of difficulties. But in both Europe and America the public has found after a period of trial that the parking meter is a very popular device which assists and does not obstruct. That is the common experience in many countries, and I am sure that that will be the experience in Scotland too. I hope that these parking meters will produce the money with which to provide parking space for the car of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).
12.22 a.m.
Mr. N. Macpherson: If I may, I should like to reply to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I tried to make it clear when I spoke on the first occasion that the House can have a further opportunity to discuss the actual details when Edinburgh finally makes an application for a scheme. That scheme can come before the House in the form of an Order which the House will be able to pray against.
Before applying for such an Order—and I would just give the hon. Gentleman the safeguards in this, because I think it is more appropriate that I should say what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to consider when the time comes rather than what he has already considered—the Corporation must consult the chief constable. The Corporation is also required to publish in the Edinburgh Gazette and one other newspaper an advertisement stating the general effect of the proposed Order, the places where copies of it may be seen and the time within which objections may be lodged with the Secretary of State.
The local authority is also required to take such other steps as appear to be reasonably practicable to bring the matter to the attention of persons likely to be specially affected, and the Secretary of State has power to ensure that this is done to his satisfaction and also to extend the time for lodging objections. After that, the Secretary of State considers the application together with any objections to it, and he may hold a public inquiry if he considers such a procedure desirable.
The Secretary of State may then make an Order, either in the terms proposed or subject to such modification as he thinks fit, and the Order has to be laid before the House. There is no doubt that there will be the fullest consideration of the question.
As I said in opening the debate, it would be more appropriate to discuss these matters when we come to debate the actual Order for the parking places rather than at the present time.
I think, as I said before, it is generally agreed that something has to be done. I would only add in response to the invitation of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock that our Chief Road Engineer agrees that the congestion, at least in the St. Andrew's Square and

425
Charlotte Square areas, is sufficient to justify the introduction of parking meters and to proceed with the present Order so that the matter can be examined in greater detail when the Corporation's proposals are formally submitted.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Parking Places (Scotland) (No. 1) Order, 1959, dated 4th May, 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved.

STATE PUBLIC HOUSES (DISMISSED MANAGERS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
12.25 a.m.
Dr. Donald Johnson: I am glad to have the opportunity of this Adjournment debate to raise the case of my constituents, the dismissed former public house managers of the Carlisle State Management Scheme. The subject of this debate is essentially a human one and not an ideological one. None the less, I feel unable to raise the matter without being mindful of the fact that only five days ago I was sitting on these benches listening to the debate on the firm of S. G. Brown in which a substantial part of the issues involved were the respective merits of the position of employees as between nationalised and capitalist industries, and each side of the House had its point of view.
On this side we argued that employees of capitalist industry were better off and on the other side the argument was the reverse, in favour of nationalised industry. It is very cold comfort to me that in the circumstances of this debate I have to demonstrate that the fate and treatment of these men is conclusive proof of our contention from this side of the House and one might almost say a classic instance of how poorly employees can fare at the hands of nationalised industry.
My first duty is to state the basic facts of the case and to put them on record at the risk of telling my hon. Friend facts with which he is familiar. These managers were employees of the Carlisle State Management Scheme. They were employed on a contract basis, but none
426
the less, they were civil servants and members of the Civil Service Union which has stood by them very staunchly indeed in the troubles I am about to recount.
The history of the case starts over a period of years during which the contention of the managers and their union is that undue pressure was brought to bear on them by the administration of the scheme that they should produce surplus profit over and above that profit of the normal wholesale-retail margin. It was as a result of this agitation and the pressure of the union and others— partly, I seem to remember, myself — that the Home Office set up an inquiry which was conducted by Mr. Cyril Burt Q.C., in 1957. We regarded it as unfortunate that that inquiry was held in private and not in public as was requested at the time. However, it was held and Mr. Burt reported in May, 1957. His Report was published by the Stationery Office as Command Paper 168.
His conclusions in this instance were that the case put forward by the union and the managers had not been proved. He concluded that no pressure such as was suggested had been brought to bear on the managers in regard to surplus profits. It should be stated that these conclusions were unacceptable to the managers and their union. I have been asked to state that before and after the publication of Mr. Burt's findings the Home Office has refused the opportunity to discuss with the union and with the managers any matter relating to this so-called surplus profit and, in particular, no indication was given to the managers what profit should be achieved by their respective houses. No figures of stocktaking results have been placed at their disposal.
We come to the next stage of the story, and in this we have clearly to differentiate two separate issues. Shortly after the Burt Report, police investigations started, and after eight months of the attention of Scotland Yard a number of managers were convicted of minor defalcations before the Carlisle magistrates' court. I wish to make it clear that this is an entirely separate group of managers from those we are discussing tonight. They are clearly differentiated from the men whose case I am bringing forward.

427
The group whose case I am bringing forward were almost simultaneously the subject of a separate disciplinary action by the Home Office. This was brought against seven of them, who are members of the Civil Service Union. As a consequence, five of them were dismissed and two were severely reprimanded.
It has apparently been made clear to the managers and their union that there is no question of alleged dishonesty in their case and that it is entirely a matter of alleged inefficiency. That was the reason for their dismissal. My hon. and learned Friend would help in the situation considerably if in his reply he would confirm that, in view of a number of misconceptions which seem to exist on this subject.
These seven managers whom we are discussing are all employees of long standing. They include the branch secretary, the branch treasurer, the assistant branch secretary and a national executive committee member of the local branch of the Civil Service Union.
The first charge put to them was that for a fifteen-month period during 1957–58 the results disclosed that the surpluses returned had fallen far below what could reasonably be expected, having regard to the nature of the trade and the surpluses returned by other public houses in the Carlisle district. At no time did the Home Office produce any evidence in respect of the results which were returned by other public houses in Carlisle so that the accuracy of that statement could be directly checked. I asked a Question on this subject in November, 1958, but unfortunately was not given a reply which in any respect was informative in this connection.
Later, following, I understand, pressure from the union, the charges were revised and the men were told how far short of a reasonable minimum their surpluses had fallen. There is a list, which is known to those of us who have been concerned with the case, which shows that they had to some extent fallen short of the 5 per cent. net surplus profit on the sale of beer which was expected. The figures vary from Mr. White, at The Friar's Tavern, who produced only 1·7 per cent. surplus, to
428
Mr. Quinn, at the Cumberland Inn, who produced a surplus of 3 per cent., and Mr. Baxter, at the Inglewood Forest, who produced a surplus of 3·29 per cent. These were compared with the 5 per cent. surplus which they were apparently expected to produce. However, one has to make it quite clear that, unless my hon. and learned Friend can show to the contrary, that 5 per cent. is purely notional, and we are unable to get any figures from other public houses that would in any way substantiate it.
I maintain that in the action taken of dismissing this group of managers there was, despite what was said by Mr. Burt in his Report, undue pressure brought on managers of the scheme to produce surplus profits, and on that count the Burt inquiry has, in effect, been rendered null and void. A case exists for a public inquiry into the running of the scheme as a whole and, certainly, an inquiry into the circumstances of the dismissal of these men, so that we can have more facts than are at present available.
It is the view of those of us who put forward these men's case that such an inquiry would not only support these allegations of undue pressure, but would also indicate inevitably, in view of their long service, that there must have been some laxity in not allowing these questions to be brought out sooner or, alternatively, this having been left so long, that there must have been some animosity or ill-feeling towards the men that may have dictated this decision.
This is, above all, a human problem. These men are all over 50 years of age. They have given years of faithful service to the scheme. Mr. Quinn has given 27 years, and Mr. Baxter 24 years. If some measure of inefficiency—which we do not, of course, admit, failing production of further facts—had been detected, I understand that there is a procedure available under the Superannuation Act for premature retirement in honourable circumstances, with full pension rights and so on.
Instead of that, they have had the harsh treatment which I have detailed. They have been abruptly dismissed. They are left jobless, and without the appropriate character references needed to get another job. In the circumstances, they are unable to find other, similar jobs in Carlisle, because the State scheme is a

429
monopoly there. Only this morning I received a letter from Mr. Quinn telling me that he has applied for numerous jobs but has been completely unable to find one.
Constitutionally, it seems that these men fall between two stools. They have not had the security of tenure of the civil servant but they have no had the benefit of being employees of private industry either. Perhaps the Home Office may have felt that this was contractual employment and that it could act as a private employer might act by dismissing an employee on contract. With that in mind, not being an employer of labour myself, I asked the printer who prints my books what would happen were he, as a private employer, to take similar action in respect of one of his men who had served him for 27 years and had been secretary of a union. His reply was to the effect that not only would such action bring all the men out in his works, but that he would run the risk—and I would mention that I raised this question with him six months ago—of bringing the entire printing industry out in the country.
It is fortunate that the union in question is not able to bring out the entire Civil Service on behalf of these men, and it is no part of their principles that they should do so. But we have this debate in which to put these men's case forward, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to look at this matter, first as a human problem of fair play, and secondly in the light of the working of the scheme for the future as well as the position of the present managers who are working in the scheme under this shadow. There is great concern about these men not only in Carlisle but throughout the licensing trade in general, and in union circles. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will be able to give me some reassurance.
12.41 a.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I welcome this opportunity of putting into proper perspective the dismissal of the Carlisle public house managers. Since their dismissal last year the matter has been given a good deal of publicity and has been much distorted, but when the facts are looked at objectively I think hon. Members
430
will feel, as anyone who has considered the matter feels, that it was manifestly in the public interest that these men should be dismissed from the service of the Crown.
There are 163 public houses and hotels in the Carlisle State management district. Each has its own manager. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) has pointed out, ten of these were convicted of fraud and they were dismissed following their convictions. As a separate batch, there were eight other managers against whom disciplinary action was taken, which I will describe. Of them two were severely reprimanded and down-graded and six were dismissed. I think I should mention that it is only in the case of those two batches—the ten convicted of fraud and the eight against whom disciplinary action was taken—that there has had to be action taken, and that so far as the remainder of the 160 or so managers are concerned there has been, so far as I know, no complaint among them, and no complaint by authority, of their activity.
To deal first with the suggestion that there has been some injustice in the dismissal of the five people to whom my hon. Friend referred, these managers were, of course, civil servants. There is in the Civil Service a recognised disciplinary procedure which is agreed with the Staff Side, and, incidentally, the Staff Side includes the Civil Service Union which is the staff association representing these managers. That procedure ensures that in the case of a civil servant a decision to dismiss is not made unfairly or hastily or without due consideration of the civil servant's point of view.
Briefly the procedure is this. When a disciplinary charge is made against an officer he is given in advance a written statement defining the charge and setting out the particulars of the facts relied upon to support it. He has to submit a written reply to the charge, but where there is a conflict between the charge and the written reply, the civil servant may put his case orally before a suitable senior officer in his own department, other than his immediate superior. He may have the assistance of a friend or colleague who can be a representative of the association when putting his case orally.

431
This procedure was scrupulously complied with in the Carlisle case. Indeed, it was more than fully complied with, if I may put it in that way. It was thought appropriate in the circumstances to appoint a disciplinary board, which is a part of the procedure, to hear them. This board consisted of senior officers from London and not from the Carlisle management.
Moreover, as the Civil Service Union had suggested that these particular managers were being victimised by the Home Office, it was thought appropriate that two members of the board, including the chairman, should be chosen from outside the Home Office and that there should be only one Home Office member. Accordingly the members of the Board comprised the Controller-General of the Stationery Office, the Principal Establishment Officer of the Home Office and a senior official of the Customs and Excise Department. This, I would point out to my hon. Friend, goes beyond the normal practice. In addition, the Home Office agreed at once to the union's request that two of the union's headquarters officers, and not one as prescribed by normal procedure, should foe allowed to assist the managers in the presentation of their cases to the board.
Contrary to what my hon. Friend has suggested, and at the request of the union and the managers, a great deal of supplementary information about the trading returns of the public houses was supplied to the managers from confidential official records to help them with their defence.
The disciplinary board was charged with the task of hearing the managers' oral answers to the charges made against them and the charges were in all cases that, following repeated warnings of unsatisfactory trading returns, the managers had failed by a substantial amount and over a considerable period to produce for payment into Exchequer funds the money which could reasonably have been expected from the sales of liquor at the public houses which it was their duty to manage. Large sums of money were in involved and the losses to the Exchequer were many times more than those involved in the cases of the second batch of managers who were dismissed at about the same time.
432
The board sat in Carlisle for about three days and heard the explanation of the managers. The board also allowed the union representatives full scope for dealing not only with the indivdiual cases of the managers, but also with more general points which they wished to advance, and which my hon. Friend has mentioned this evening. In the course of the lengthy proceedings, all sorts of detailed points—for example, control arrangements and staff supervision—and indeed every conceivable reason for the losses, were exhaustively examined. At the conclusion of the proceedings, the union representatives went out of their way to thank the board for the fair hearing given to the managers and their representatives.
The decision to dismiss the managers was taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, personally, in the light of the board's report, which included a full record of the managers' replies and the points made on their behalf by the union representatives. This decision was taken after the fullest possible consideration of all these matters, and I would like here to stress the fact the proceedings before a disciplinary board are not in the nature of a trial or an inquiry. The purpose is simply to give an employee a full opportunity to explain his conduct to representatives of his employer. It follows that they are of a private character and it would be inappropriate and contrary to accepted practice to publish a report of them.
Although the Civil Service disciplinary procedure does not provide for any appeal against a decision to dismiss, the Home Secretary stated that he was prepared to consider any further written representations which the managers might wish to make. They made such representations, and the Home Secretary also considered further representations made on their behalf by the union and by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle. After very careful consideration of these further representations, the Home Secretary came to the conclusion that there was no ground for varying the original decision and he so informed the managers and the union.
There is no doubt in my right hon. Friend's mind that the charges against the managers were established up to the hilt and that in view of their serious

433
nature and the heavy losses to the Exchequer for which these men were responsible, amounting to well over £1,000, dismissal with all its consequences was the only appropriate penalty. There has been ample confirmation of his decision from our experience since those dismissals. Each one of the public houses in question is now regularly producing results as good as, and mostly better than, the standard by which the dismissed managers were judged and of which they fell short. It would be a slander on the successors to those managers and on the many managers of the other public houses in the scheme who produce reasonable results to suggest that this improvement is due to short measure.
On that issue, having listened to my hon. Friend tonight, I must say that nothing has happened to invalidate the findings of Mr. Burt, Q.C., who held the inquiry of a more general nature before these disciplinary proceedings were taken.
My hon. Friend invited me to comment on his statement that no dishonesty was involved concerning the managers to whom he referred. It is true to say that they were dismissed for inefficiency and only the managers themselves can say how the bad results were arrived at.
It is right that I should add that my right hon. Friend is convinced that justice has been done. He is not prepared to reopen the cases of the managers, nor is he prepared to order
434
any further inquiry, in public or in private.
In conclusion, I should, perhaps, say a word about some more specific points that were mentioned by my hon. Friend. I deal with the question of the surplus. The existence of a natural surplus on the sale of beer is well known generally throughout the trade, but whatever may or may not happen in privately-owned public houses, we know from experience in the Carlisle State management district that a natural surplus is an inevitable result of the sale of drink. It might almost be said to be one of the facts of life in the drink trade and it occurs without any resort to any practice which smacks of dishonest trading.
The existence of this natural surplus in the course of ordinary trading was referred to by Mr. Burt in his report. He also drew attention in that report to an admission by the Civil Service Union representative who gave evidence before him of the inevitability of this natural surplus.
As Mr. Burt found, there is no question of pressure being placed on managers to give short measure or to make undue profits. If, however, the trading returns of a public house fall consistently short of expectation, there is something wrong which calls for explanation. Explanation was called for in this case and it was not satisfactorily forthcoming.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to One o'clock.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Private Streets (Survey)
  Private Streets (Survey)
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Multi-Storey Buildings
  Multi-Storey Buildings
HOUSING
  Rent Act
  Rent Act
  Requisitioned Houses
  Requisitioned Houses
SIERRA LEONE
  Railway Workers (Redundancy)
  Railway Workers (Redundancy)
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Colonial Development Corporation (Capital Projects)
  Colonial Development Corporation (Capital Projects)
NYASALAND
  Detention Camps
  Detention Camps
  Corporal Punishment (Children and Young Persons)
  Corporal Punishment (Children and Young Persons)
  African Congress
  African Congress
MAURITIUS
  Five-Year Plan
  Five-Year Plan
WEST AFRICA
  Secretary of State's Visit
  Secretary of State's Visit
SOMALILAND
  Legislative Councils (Exchange of Visits)
  Legislative Councils (Exchange of Visits)
WEST INDIES
  Citrus Industry
  Citrus Industry
BRITISH GUIANA
  Political Developments
  Political Developments
SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  Nyasaland Africans (Arrests)
  Nyasaland Africans (Arrests)
KENYA
  Ex-Senior Chief Koinange
  Ex-Senior Chief Koinange
ADEN
  Attorney-General (Acting Chief Secretary)
  Attorney-General (Acting Chief Secretary)
TANGANYIKA
  Schools (Racial Integration)
  Schools (Racial Integration)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Regent's Canal
  Regent's Canal
  Ancient Monuments, Lanarkshire
  Ancient Monuments, Lanarkshire
  Multi-Storey Buildings
  Multi-Storey Buildings
SCOTLAND
  Registration of Title to Land (Committee)
  Registration of Title to Land (Committee)
  Teachers (Widows' Pensions)
  Teachers (Widows' Pensions)
  Licensing Laws
  Licensing Laws
  Driving Offences (Drunkenness)
  Driving Offences (Drunkenness)
  Criminal Offences (Costs on Acquittal)
  Criminal Offences (Costs on Acquittal)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Consumer Habits and Needs (Report)
  Consumer Habits and Needs (Report)
  Goatskins
  Goatskins
  Nylon Stockings
  Nylon Stockings
  Eggs
  Eggs
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Retail Prices
  Retail Prices
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Anglo-Danish Discussions
  Anglo-Danish Discussions
  Wheat Subsidy
  Wheat Subsidy
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Snake Serum
  Snake Serum
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Refugees
  Refugees
  Administration of Justice (Channel Islands and Isle of Man)
  Administration of Justice (Channel Islands and Isle of Man)
TRANSPORT
  Rural Transport
  Rural Transport

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool

PIRACY OF BRITISH BOOKS
2.35 p.m.
VISCOUT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to the piracy of British books by firms on the island of Formosa; and whether they can suggest means of putting an end to this illegal and obnoxious practice.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I have seen Press reports of pirated copies made in Formosa being sold in Hong Kong. Formosa is not a party to either of the international Copyright Conventions, but pirated copies cap be seized if imported into British Colonies.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Earl for his Answer. May I take it that everything the Government can possibly do to put an end to this piracy will be done?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the initiative is with the owners of the copyright. They can apply for the pirated copies either to be prohibited imports or to be seized when they are marketed in any country in the British Commonwealth.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The noble Earl will, will he not, let it be known that the Government are wholly opposed to this piracy in every shape and form. Will he do that?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not think it would be likely that we should let it be known that we were in favour of piracy. But the noble Viscount's Question asks what means we can
440
suggest for putting an end to it, and the Answer is that the means already exist. The copyright owners can take action in the courts against persons infringing copyrights. They can also request the customs authorities to prohibit the importation of pirated books.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, as this matter affects British publishers and British authors, could the Government make strong representations to the authorities on Formosa?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we have no information on the subject, apart from the Press reports to which I have referred; but I think the law as I have described it, if it is used by the people who are injured, ought to be sufficient to protect them.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, could the noble Earl say what type of book is being pirated in Formosa?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, my Lords, I could not.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would the noble Earl say whether the position will be very much better owing to the Government's excellent new policy of spending £500,000 on subsidising British titles abroad? They will have a financial interest in stopping this piracy, and surely they will take more stringent action with our own money than leaving it to the owners of the copyrights.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it seems to me the action which can now be taken is sufficiently stringent.

RAINFALL STORAGE FACILITIES
2.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many gallons of water were represented by the rainfall in Scotland and England and Wales in 1957, and for how many gallons were national and municipal storage facilities available.]
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, in 1957 the rainfall in Scotland was estimated to be 23·3 million million gallons, and for England it was estimated to be

441
29·8 million million gallons. I trust that the noble Viscount will give a little latitude in those figures either way. Public water undertakers have storage facilities for an estimated 76,000 million gallons and 222,000 million gallons respectively. Those figures take no account of water stored in natural lakes, underground strata and canals or in the storage provided by hydro-electric works, industry or private agencies.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Earl for his comprehensive Answer; it will take a little study to arrive at the magnitude of its depths. May I, with the permission of the House, congratulate the Sub-Committee on the Growing Demand for Water and the Sub-Committee on Information on Water Resources on the excellent work they have carried out and on their admirable Reports? May I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware, as no doubt he is, that the Report of the first Sub-Committee says, at paragraph 34:
"An important factor in the rate at which capital works can be carried out is governmental policy in the matter of capital investment. The effect of the control of expenditure on an essential service such as water has been comparatively mild but some schemes have been postponed or scaled down on grounds of economy and such schemes can be expected to swell the rate of expenditure when restraints are lifted "
Is the noble Earl aware that, although schemes are planned up to 1965, the future seems to be somewhat in doubt? One of the conditions necessary is that capital investment is permitted on the requisite scale. Will the noble Earl convey to his colleagues that if there is any necessity for further capital investment, then that should be permitted: that, far from stepping-down capital investment, permission will be given to carry it on?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I must thank the noble Viscount for his compliment, and I will certainly pass it on to my right honourable friend and the Sub-Committees concerned. I am quite certain that my right honourable friend is well aware of the position as it will be after 1965 and is making plans towards meeting it.

LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS BILL [H.L.]
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make provision for the enfranchisement of residential property held under long leases; for the modification or extinction of certain restrictive covenants; and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

POTATOES (GUARANTEED PRICES) ORDER, 1959
2.41 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE) rose to move, That the Potatoes (Guaranteed Prices) Order, 1959, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on June 10. The noble Earl said: With your Lordships' permission, I would propose to deal with the two somewhat complicated Orders which stand in my name on the Order Paper at the same time. They relate to the whole of the United Kingdom. The first Order, the Potatoes (Guaranteed Prices) Order, 1959, gives effect to the changes which my right honourable friend announced in another place a year ago to-day, on June 30, 1958. Briefly, the new arrangements substitute for the purchase of surplus potatoes on Government account arrangements that assure a minimum return to the industry as a whole related to the requirements of potatoes for human consumption. A guaranteed price for such potatoes will be determined each year in the light of the conclusions reached from Reviews held under the Agriculture Act, 1947. The guaranteed price is determined this year at £12 14s. 0d. a ton. If in any year the average price received by producers for potatoes for human consumption is less than the guaranteed price, then the deficiency will be made good from Exchequer funds. In Great Britain the amount due will be paid to the Potato Marketing Board, and in Northern Ireland to the Ministry of Agriculture

443
for Northern Ireland for the benefit of producers.
I feel sure that your Lordships will recognise the necessity for a change from the existing support price arrangements. The old arrangements derive from the war-time system of control. They were originally devised to meet conditions in which the Government wanted a surplus of potatoes as an insurance against shortages of other foods. Farmers were directed to grow potatoes in areas and on land where potato-growing would not normally be an economic proposition. It was a corollary of this system that the Government should undertake to buy any surplus for which the grower could not find a market.
The guarantee arrangements for many other commodities—for instance, livestock and cereals—have already been changed following decontrol to meet the changed conditions. But the basic features of the potato guarantee arrangements remained unaltered when the Potato Marketing Board was revived in 1955. The Government came to the conclusion last year that it must introduce a guarantee system for potatoes more suited to present-day conditions and the needs of a freer economy. These regulations implement that decision.
The main reasons for this decision are briefly these. The present system involves State trading in surplus potatoes which it is the Government's policy to bring to an end. Moreover, it leads to costly and often unnecessary movement of surplus potatoes, whereas in many cases the most economic outlet is to use them for stockfeed on the farms where grown—as was the general practice before the war. It is also a grave weakness of the support price system that it has led to fraud and other irregularities at the taxpayers' expense. We are convinced that this difficulty can be overcome only by fundamental changes in the arrangements.
We believe that the new deficiency system will eliminate these and other weaknesses. We are satisfied that it will greatly reduce the scope for fraud and other malpractices. But, more than that, we feel that the new system is justified on its own merits, for it has positive long-term advantages. It will, for instance, introduce greater flexibility in
444
production and marketing, and will give growers more incentive to produce the type of potatoes demanded by the consumer and to improve grading and standards generally.
It is understandable that some growers were a little nervous about the cessation of the individual guarantee they received in the past. But I want to emphasise that the income of the industry as a whole will still be supported by the Government. It is true that surplus potatoes not required for human consumption will no longer be covered by the guarantee; but the Government have taken account of this by increasing the guaranteed price for potatoes for human consumption. The farmers' unions have agreed that the higher guaranteed price of £12 14s. 0d. per ton is equivalent to the lower price of £11 9s. 0d. per ton which is current now under the support price system. The new system for potatoes is similar in principle to those for fat-stock and cereals, but takes account of the existence of a producer Marketing Board for potatoes which there is not for the other two commodities I have mentioned. This Board has an important part to play in the operation of the guarantee.
I hope that I do not weary your Lordships in going through the scheme in some detail because it is a radical departure from the system which we are using at the moment. It may be helpful if, briefly, I go through the main features of the Order. Article 3 provides for the determination each year of a guaranteed price per ton for potatoes. As I have said, at this Price Review that has been determined at £12 14s. 0d. Article 4 is a very important matter. It deals with the estimation of the quantity of potatoes sold for human consumption in each year and the average price received by producers for such potatoes. The detailed arrangements for calculating what is referred to as the "annual quantity" and the average price have been worked out in consultation with the producers' representatives.
I should mention here that for the 1959 crop only, while the new machinery is running in, it has been agreed that the annual quantity will be estimated at 3,809,000 tons. This arrangement has been made following representations by

445
the farmers' unions and the Potato Marketing Board and was announced in the White Paper, in paragraph 16 or 17, on the last Annual Review. Article 5 provides for the payment of any deficiency. As I said before, in Great Britain payment will be made to the Potato Marketing Board on behalf of producers, and in Northern Ireland payment will be made to the Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland who will use it for the benefit of producers in that country. Article 6 enables the Minister to make a contribution towards the Potato Marketing Board's administrative expenses. This is to be limited to a maximum of not more than 50 per cent. of the administrative expenses, and to not more than £300,000 in the first two years. Article 7 allows advances to be made to the Board for deficiency payments and administrative expenses. Article 8 deals with the special arrangements necessary for Northern Ireland. I think I need not say any more on that Order.
The second Order is the Potatoes (Protection of Guarantees) Order, which comes into force on August 1, 1959. As its title suggests, it is intended to safeguard the new guarantee arrangements. It follows the general pattern of similar Orders for other commodities in making provision for records to be kept by traders and for other matters, so that Ministers may satisfy themselves and Parliament that public money has been properly expended. We have discussed these provisions with the trade associations concerned, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking them for their co-operation.
I have endeavoured to give your Lordships some indication of the reasons why the Government have found it necessary to make these changes. The two Orders under discussion provide the machinery for giving effect to the Government's decision and I feel confident that they will meet with your Lordships' approval.
Moved, That the Potatoes (Guaranteed Prices) Order, 1959, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on June 10.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
2.50 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, there are just one or two things I should like to say about these Orders before they are passed through your Lordships' House. First of all, the Minister said there was
446
some doubt as to whether this new arrangement will be acceptable to the producer and the trade, but I am glad to hear from him that consultation has taken place with the National Farmers' Union and others concerned and that they are agreed that this particular method of dealing with potatoes should at any rate have a trial. I feel that the Order should be read in conjunction with the February Review of Prices—the White Paper—as it was there suggested that these Orders should be made; and I also noticed that the Minister referred, as does the White Paper, to the industry as a whole.
I am rather concerned as to whether or not the producer who sells direct to the retailer, institutions or private consumers will benefit by these particular orders. For instance, in the White Paper (on page 20, at paragraph 16), as no doubt the noble Earl the Minister will note, there is a description of the various producers whose products will be taken note of in the amounts sold for human consumption. The description of "producers" in Section 4 (1) of Order No. 983 does not appear to tally with the description given in the White Paper. I am wondering, therefore, whether the producers to whom I have referred are included, and whether they have to come under any kind of licence from the Ministry.
In that particular section there is repeated reference to "licensed grower-salesmen" and "licensed merchants". I am wondering whether the ordinary producer who sells direct has to be licensed in any way, and whether, when deficiency payments are made by the Potato Marketing Board, not only will his products be considered but the deficiency payment, received by other producers, will be received by the direct seller. The noble Earl the Minister mentioned the basis on which deficiency payments would be arrived at on a tonnage of 3,809,000 acres——
EARL WALDEGRAVE: It is tons.
LORD WISE: Yes, on that tonnage. I notice that the estimate of production for the year just ending was given in the White Paper as 5,556,000 tons. That is a difference of 1,747,000 tons, which is about one-third of the whole of the potato production. It seems to me that even if we estimate the tonnage of

447
potatoes used for feed, for stock-feed and for export, there is a big loss between the tonnage of potatoes produced and the amount consumed for food. I do not know whether that figure is right. According to the White Paper also, the area of potatoes last year was 822,000 acres and the average tonnage per acre, therefore, was roughly about 7.
I come now to the question of the amount of the deficiency payment. In the White Paper the amount of the price support to the potato industry is estimated this year at £6,900,000, which also includes some loss—described in the Paper as "a small trading loss"—by reason of the fact that the Government had to purchase surplus potatoes. I want to ask the noble Earl the Minister whether the estimate for the first year under this new system will be higher as a deficiency payment than the surplus payment last year. As a matter of interest I might break up that figure of £6,900,000. The tonnage of our potatoes was roughly 4 million for human consumption and the cost, admitting the slight trading loss, might be estimated at £6 million, which is £1 10s. per ton. In round figures, that means about £10 an acre, and I am wondering, therefore, whether the noble Earl has yet reached any conclusion in his calculations as to what the amount of deficiency payment per acre is likely to be this year. I notice that in the previous year, 1957, the deficiency payment was higher by just over £1 million than it will be for this year, and I am wondering whether next year it is likely to go up.
There is just one other point I should like to raise on these Orders. That is in regard to the Potato Marketing Board. The functions of the Board are not very thoroughly defined in the Orders, and I am hoping that one of the functions of the Board will be to protect the producer and the Government in regard to prices. The fact that the guaranteed price this year will be £12 14s., as against the support price last year of £11 9s., rather suggests that unless in some way or other, we control the price which the merchant pays to the producer, the Government may have to face a higher deficiency payment than was made last year. I am most anxious, therefore, not only that the producer should be safeguarded in
448
regard to the price he obtains for his product but also that the consumer and the Government should have a fair deal at the hands of merchants who buy our potatoes.
3.0 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, there is one question I should like to ask the noble Earl. He made a passing reference to giving the consumer what he wanted. I should like to ask him what there is in these Orders that will ensure for the consumer a better quality of potato than he has been having in the past. I hope that the noble Earl is aware that there is hardly any article of food in this country which causes more dissatisfaction to the consumer than the potatoes which are commonly obtainable in large towns and cities. They entirely lack flavour; they are frequently of very poor quality, requiring the housewife to pare large fractions off them before she can cook them, and they frequently turn black when they are cooked. We are apparently to continue to spend a considerable amount of money in subsidising the production of potatoes, but what guarantee is there that the consumer is going to get any better article?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, with permission, I should like to reply briefly to the points that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, asked about retail sales. I assure him there is no discrepancy between the White Paper and the Order which I have just moved. The point is that under Article 4 of the Order the producer who wants to sell direct has to obtain a licence from the Potato Marketing Board, and then he becomes a licensed grower-salesman; that is how he is described. Then his sales are taken into consideration in these calculations to arrive at the average price and quantities, and so on. The only persons who sell potatoes for human consumption whose transactions are not taken into consideration are the small wayside sellers who are not licensed, though really they ought to be, and who sell a few pounds of potatoes to passers-by. There would be no practical means of collecting statistics about such sales as those. I hope that covers the point.
As to the discrepancy, as there was stated to be, between the tonnage, the figures which the noble Lord, Lord

449
Wise quoted were for the gross product and there is always a great difference between the gross and net figures. There are to be considered nearly one million tons of seed potatoes, to begin with; all the potatoes fed to farm livestock, and some used for industrial purposes and so on. I can assure noble Lords that the reason why we put in a figure this year, which is an agreed figure, for what we should be using as the agreed quantity was that the machinery might be a little creaky in its first year in getting the returns in, and we wanted to be quite certain that we were doing no injustice to anyone. That is an agreed figure, as a reasonable figure, on which this calculation should be made. It will remain fixed whether sales for human consumption turn out to be more or less than that, so it is a basis.
The noble Lord spoke of the deficiency payment under this scheme. Let us get clear that there is not going to be a deficiency payment to an individual producer under the old price support basis. The deficiency payment is paid in a lump sum to the Potato Marketing Board, or the Ministry in Northern Ireland. They will do what they like with it, and will deal with it in the interests of their own producers; and the Potato Marketing Board are the producers' Board, so they should know. As to the deficiency payment, I do not know whether there will be a deficiency payment at all.
That leads me to my next point: that the real function of the Board and of the purpose of this scheme, as the noble Lord, Lord Wise, said, is to use the riddle to market potatoes. That, again, leads me, to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch. I cannot agree with him that there is really great dissatisfaction with the quality of potatoes we buy now; but whether or not there is dissatisfaction the object of this exercise is to promote the better marketing of potatoes; to get people to grow and to use efforts to sell what the public want. By that means the growers will get a better price and the whole scheme will work. The system whereby all that was produced, of whatever quality, and wherever it was produced, was supported by a Government payment did not lead to that end, and that is why we so much believe that this new scheme will
450
produce a better quality potato than we have had before.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POTATOES (PROTECTION OF GUARANTEES) ORDER, 1959
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I beg to move the second Order.
Moved, That the Potatoes (Protection of Guarantees) Order, 1959, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on June 10.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURE (STATIONARY MACHINERY) REGULATIONS, 1959
3.6 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE EARL WALDEGRAVE rose to move, That the Agriculture (Stationary Machinery) Regulations, 1959, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on June 16. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of these Regulations, like that of most of their predecessors under the Agriculture Safety Act, 1956, is to safeguard the worker. The Regulations apply to Great Britain. Your Lordships will remember that, under this Act, we have already brought in Regulations for first aid, power take-offs, ladders, work places, circular saws, and the safety of children, and now we come to stationary machinery. The Regulations now before your Lordships deal with a group of farm machines under the general heading of "Stationary machinery" and their scope includes farm machinery designed or adapted for stationary use only. Prime movers used to drive such machines are also included. Threshers, hullers, balers and trussers need special treatment and are left for a later set of Regulations.
Guards of adequate strength must be provided for components such as shafting, pulleys, belts, flywheels and so forth, unless these components are safely positioned, out of the way of workers. Conveyors or other slow-moving belts or chains need only be guarded at the run-on point where they go on to the pulley; this also applies to primary driving belts, except where they are part of a fixed installation, when the whole length of

451
the belt must be guarded. Machines which grind or similarly treat grain, and those which prepare feeding-stuffs such as roots, hay, et cetera, must have guards on their feeding inlets and discharge outlets.
Readily accessible stopping devices must be available for both machines and prime movers. These will, for prime movers, often be switches, and there are special requirements for their effectiveness, such as clear identification with the prime mover concerned. For most of the requirements employers will be allowed two years to make the necessary arrangements. The comparatively easy guarding of feeding inlets and discharge outlets of certain machines that deal with grain must be done in twelve months. This shorter period also applies to provision of adequate light and maintenance of belts.
As with earlier Safety Regulations, responsibility is largely on the employer, in that he must not let a worker use prescribed machinery unless it conforms with the regulations. But the employee must use the facilities provided and must keep guards in position. He must also report damage to guards. No responsibility has been laid on manufacturers and dealers. The guards required frequently depend on the position of the machine in relation to the worker or to other machines of which the manufacturer could not be expected to be aware. The layout of an installation is primarily the concern of the farmer. Nevertheless, organisations representing both manufacturers and dealers have been consulted during the framing of the Regulations, and I am confident that they will co-operate.
As with some earlier Safety Regulations, we have made provision for certificates of exemption. But, once again, these would be considered only in very special circumstances, and not just because compliance might, for some reason, be difficult. The safety measures required are essentially simple. We have endeavoured to deal with causes of accidents in a realistic but flexible manner. Interested organisations have been consulted, and the Regulations as drafted have been accepted by all sides of the farming industry. We shall again use all available means to inform people
452
concerned of their responsibilities: publicity will include leaflets explaining the detailed requirements, and more general announcements as reminders. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Agriculture (Stationary Machinery) Regulations, 1959, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on June 16.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
LORD WISE: May I briefly commend these particular Regulations? I well remember the passing of the Act which we brought into operation in order to safeguard the farm worker in his daily task. The great point about the Regulations is that they cover all the likely troubles, and I am glad to hear that publicity will be given to them, because the Regulations and the Act not only affect the employers but also throw an obligation on the employee. I think that, with these two working together, we shall be able to reduce the very large number of accidents which do happen and which could be avoided by the best farming practice. I am glad to commend the Regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COTTON INDUSTRY BILL
3.11 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is an enabling Bill which empowers the President of the Board of Trade, who will be advised by a special committee of the Cotton Board, to do certain things, which are not specified in detail in the Bill and which I cannot specify in detail to-day, although they may be rather clearer in outline when the reorganisation schemes to which the Bill refers are submitted, as they will have to be, for your Lordships' approval, before the end of next month. The purpose of the Bill is not to reorganise the cotton industry, but to help the cotton industry to reorganise itself by applying certain limited grants of public money at the points where we think it will do most good, and at a moment of time which seems to us to be the most favourable moment at which to take this action.

453
I am not an authority on cotton. I know very little about it and I am not going to try to give a lecture on the historical causes, or on the recent causes, which have led to the difficulties with which the industry is now confronted. Some authorities think, or say, that the real trouble is that the cotton industry had far too long a start over the rest of the world. It had an almost unchallenged monopoly of export markets for too many generations before it had to face any kind of competition. Other people say that those who work and manage the industry are too conservative and not sufficiently disposed to change their methods. And there are some authorities who say that everything would have been all right if it had not been for the sellers' market after the war, which created too easy and deceptive conditions and led to the postponement of methods of reform which ought to have been taken earlier and which have now become extremely urgent.
I prefer to start with what everybody appears to agree ought to be done now, and on which there seems to be agreement not only with the Government, but among all sections of the industry, both management and labour. That is, that what the industry needs is a great deal more modern equipment, up-to-date machinery—for instance, automatic looms instead of Lancashire looms, ring spindles instead of mule spindles, and so on—in order to compete with the very much more up-to-date machinery which is now established both in Asia and in Europe.
It is agreed, moreover, that it is no use trying to encourage more up-to-date machinery in the cotton industry unless you can first get rid of redundant capacity. As the White Paper on Reorganisation of the Cotton Industry says in paragraph 16, referring to redundancy:
"While this exists there is no possible way to restore the confidence necessary to modernise and re-equip on the scale needed to give the industry the strength to compete in world markets."
Unless this excess capacity, very often obsolete but still in existence, is removed, production will continue to be inefficiently distributed over a large number of mills working below capacity. The stifling atmosphere of weakness will continue to pervade the industry and even
454
efficient firms will have neither the means nor the confidence to modernise and re-equip.
If the Government did nothing, would it be possible for the cotton industry to do these things itself? I have no doubt that in the long run it would. But I think it would be a very long and painful process, during which many skilled workers would lose their jobs without compensation. The livelihood of those who remained in the industry would go on being insecure, and it would be unlikely to attract young people or those, whether on the labour or management side, with enterprise and ability. What the Government hope to do by the measures we are proposing to take is to enable the industry to carry through this necessary process of re-equipping itself much more quickly, a great deal less painfully and, we hope, a great deal more efficiently than would otherwise be the case.
It was eight months ago, last October, when the Prime Minister gave an assurance to the cotton industry that if they put forward plans which involved a measure of direct help, the Government would give them sympathetic attention. The Prime Minister chose that time to say this because it seemed probable that the agreement which has since been concluded with Hong Kong would be made; and, as your Lordships know, it is hoped that it will be followed by voluntary agreement with India and Pakistan to restrict imports, which are hurting Lancashire, from Commonwealth countries. We cannot give any protection by duties or quotas against Commonwealth imports because of the Ottawa Agreement which is so important to our trade, but it is acknowledged that in the interests of the Commonwealth as a whole it is not a good thing that Lancashire cotton should be knocked out. That is why Hong Kong agreed to do this and why we hope that Pakistan and India will make similar arrangements.
The Government felt that the timing of this matter was very important; when dealing with the very hardworking, but hard-headed, realistic and sometimes, perhaps, a little obstinate people managing the cotton industry, timing is important. The present moment, with the agreement with Hong Kong and the coming agreements with Pakistan and India, is the most

455
favourable time at which to take the action we are now proposing.
My Lords, what this Bill does is to give sanction—partly, as it will be, retrospective sanction—to the plans and procedures which were first announced to your Lordships on April 23 and subsequently embodied in the White Paper. The first clause of the Bill provides for reorganisation schemes in which the Government will pay two-thirds of the amount of compensation to be received by the owners of plant which is scrapped. The second clause provides for a Government grant of 25 per cent. towards the installation of new, up-to-date machinery. The third clause sets up the administration through which the scheme will be run—that is, a special committee of the Cotton Board. That committee is already at work and the Bill provides that what it is doing now shall have effect as if the Bill had already been passed when it was done. The special committee consists of my noble friend Lord Rochdale, Chairman of the Cotton Board, the two other independent members of the Board, and two new outside members—one a leading North of England manufacturer of woodworking machinery, Mr. J. C. Robinson; and the other a leading trade unionist, Mr. E. Hall, of the National Union of Mineworkers.
This special committee, whose executive officer will be Mr. Burney, as has already been announced in the White Paper, is now busily engaged in discussions with representatives of the various sections of the industry in order to produce, as we hope will happen next month, three reorganisation schemes: one for the spinning section, one for the doubling section, and one for the weaving section. The finishing section is more complicated, and will probably come later; but it is urgently desired to get the reorganisation schemes for those three sections of the industry approved before August. These reorganisation schemes will deal with the amount of surplus capacity which, in the opinion of our advisers, is the minimum amount necessary to make the scheme worth while. Then it will impose a time limit during which people who want to apply for a grant for scrapping their machinery may do so; and it will also decide the amount of compensation to be paid.
456
I cannot, of course, give any figures now on any of these subjects. Some of your Lordships expressed a good deal of interest, I remember, on what sort of proportion of equipment in the industry was redundant and was likely to be scrapped. I was very careful at that time not to give any figure. The White Paper was not quite so careful, and in paragraph 12 it gives one estimate from the Cotton Spinners' and Manufacturers' Association, who suggest that the aim should be to reduce capacity in the weaving section by at least 70,000 looms. I would remind your Lordships that that figure is not one for which the Government are responsible. We are merely quoting an early estimate which was given by the Cotton Spinners' and Manufacturers' Association.
Since then, of course, they have spent a lot of time discussing this matter with the special committee of the Cotton Board. Whether they have revised that first estimate or not, I do not know; but the figures which will be fixed in these reorganisation schemes will be minimum figures, not maximum figures. They may be exceeded. The figure laid down of the number of looms or spindles, as the case may be, to be scrapped, will be the minimum figure which is considered worth while; and if that minimum figure is not in fact reached, if there are not enough applications to reach the minimum figure, then the scheme will fall to the ground and cannot be proceeded with. So it is very important from the point of view of the industry that enough people will take advantage of the opportunity of getting this grant for scrapping their surplus plant, in order to make the scheme worth while. That is the first thing that the draft reorganisation schemes will lay down—the minimum: not necessarily the final amount, but the minimum amount of machinery to be scrapped.
Then they will lay down a maximum time during which people may apply for a grant, which will be short. The White Paper says, "say, a month"—and I do not quite know what qualification is intended by the word "say". Probably it will depend a great deal on the estimated effect of the holiday season on the timetable; but, at any rate, the period will be short. The President of the Board of Trade will not recommend the draft schemes to Parliament unless

457
he is satisfied that the minimum amount of redundant machinery proposed to be scrapped is enough to justify the expenditure of public money on it, and the schemes will be then submitted to both Houses of Parliament.
Outside the scheme there is another kind of compensation—compensation to displaced employees. There will be two levies on the industry, which will be compulsory levies. One will be to provide the remaining one-third of the cost of the scrapping of redundant machinery, which is not to be paid by the Government. That levy will be paid to the Cotton Board, who will act through their special committee as the agents of the Government. The other levy, for compensating workpeople who may be displaced, will be paid to a committee consisting of representatives of employers and trade unions, which will administer the fund and pay out compensation. The Government have always taken the view that they are not going to prescribe any particular conditions for the payment of compensation, because we think it is far better that it should be worked out and agreed on entirely between the representatives of the trade unions and the employers.
I think the agreement which has so far been reached is very encouraging indeed. In fact, I did not think they would reach so much agreement in so short a time. Agreement in principle on arrangements for compensation has been reached between the employers and the unions in the spinning, doubling and weaving sections. One half of the compensation is to take the form of unconditional lump sum payments; the other half is to be in weekly payments at a rate which will not conflict with the worker's entitlement to unemployment benefit, and these weekly payments will be affected by the extent to which an operative obtains new employment. There are still a few details which have not yet been agreed, but I think it is satisfactory that so much agreement in principle has already been reached.
My Lords, if these draft reorganisation schemes are judged to be satisfactory, if they are approved by Parliament, and if the necessary amount of surplus, redundant machinery is scrapped, then we come on to the next purpose of the Bill,
458
which, although it is secondary in time, is far more important, and that is the re-equipping of the industry with new machinery. The Government will provide a grant of 25 per cent. in cases where the installation of new machinery is approved; and in this case there is a fixed time-table put in the Bill. In the case of the reorganisation schemes, it is all left to negotiation between the special sub-committee and the industry. In the Bill three years is fixed as the limit during which application for grant may be made for new machinery and five years is the limit during which the machinery may actually be installed. Compensation for loss of employment can be paid if it results from the installation of new machinery in place of old machinery, but it is not expected that that will be great. Indeed, even in the case of reorganisation schemes, although it is an important part of policy that compensation should be paid, I think it may be found that the number of people affected may not be quite so large as we may be apt to think at the beginning; but perhaps that may be optimistic—I do not know.
The reasons which justify this limited and temporary amount of assistance to the cotton industry are that it is suffering this peculiarly difficult competition, largely from members of the Common wealth, against whom no protection can be given on account of the Ottawa Agreements, and made possible by Asiatic labour, and that the industry is so much concentrated in one part of the country. The assistance we are able to give cannot go on for ever and cannot be an unlimited amount, and I hope very much that full advantage will be taken of the opportunity which this Bill will provide. Your Lordships will all have been delighted to see in the last month or two, for various reasons which I will not take up your Lordships' time by going into, that there has been an improvement in the cotton industry. We are glad to see that, but we hope that the result of this temporary improvement will not be to discourage the industry from taking advantage of the provisions of this Bill.
I do not know whether your Lordships have seen an article in the Financial Times of this morning, which concludes by saying:

459
"The real danger of the present improvement in textiles is that it may lull Lancashire into a state of forgetfulness of its problems. Companies which so recently were preparing to quit the industry because of their difficulties would be well advised to take advantage of the Indian summer and accept the opportunities now offered by reorganisation proposals."
I would earnestly recommend those words to the leaders of the cotton industry in Lancashire.
Although our assistance on economic grounds can be justified only by the special conditions I have mentioned. I am sure that your Lordships will be anxious to give this kind of help to the cotton industry on much wider grounds. Whether we live in Lancashire or somewhere else, whether we know Lancashire or do not know it—and I am afraid that I do not know Lancashire very well—we have all read about the great history of the Lancashire cotton industry, of the inventions of Arkwright which started off the Industrial Revolution, of the enormous wealth which it brought to this country, of the way in which the cotton workers all tightened their belts during the American Civil War because they were determined not to do anything which might support the institution of slavery, and of all that Lancashire cotton has meant to the political and the industrial life of this country. Whatever new industries may be established in Lancashire, and many are being established, it would be very sad to see this old one going downhill. It seems fairly certain that we are now entering into a new Industrial Revolution, which may mean more to the wealth and prosperity of human beings than the former Industrial Revolution of the 19th century. I hope that it may be carried through in a more humane way and with better distribution of wealth. I am sure that your Lordships will all hope that the spinners and weavers of Lancashire, who led the world in the old Industrial Revolution, will prosper and flourish in this new one.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
3.37 p.m.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for the clear exposition he
460
has given of this complicated Bill. I wish that it were possible to respond by more enthusiastic approval of this proposal than I feel able to give, although I must welcome the somewhat feeble and belated recognition by the Government that the cotton industry is in a bad way and that some degree of national planning is the only thing that is going to save it. I regret very much that this was not recognised before and that years have gone by with this industry languishing worse and worse without the Government doing anything at all.
Since the present Government came into office, to go back no further, the export of cotton yarn has gone down from 65 million to 27 million lb. and linear yards of cloth from 858 million to 371 million. There has been a startling decline in the number of operatives in this basic British industry from nearly 300,000 to under 200,000. All this has gone on for everybody to see and the reasons for it have been well known for a long time. At last the Government come along with a plan, which must be welcomed as some attempt, but it still leaves a great deal to be hoped for, though one cannot be at all sure that there is any reasonable chance of those hopes being justified.
The scheme falls into three phases, as I understand it. I would ask your Lordships to excuse me if I am inexpert in this matter as I know more about the worsted industry than about cotton. The first phase deals with the redundancy of machinery and work-people and it is in this connection that the compensation proposals are made. It seems to me dangerous to separate in point of time, and make separate schemes to deal with, redundancy and re-equipment, which is the vital thing. It is necessary to deal not only with redundancy, but also with the organisation of the industry. There is far too much piecemeal organisation in this industry, and all the horizontal arrangements really need reorganising on a vertical basis. I should feel much happier about this scheme if it were an integrated scheme, and if everything depended from the beginning on re-equipment with modern machines, being used by a modern vertical organisation which could cope with modern conditions. As it is, this scheme pays out, it may be, large sums to compensate for the

461
elimination of excess capacity, without any guarantee that it will be followed by really thorough reorganisation and re-equipment with up-to-date machinery. The elimination of excess capacity by itself will do nothing but put public money into private pockets. The only hope of the industry is that it shall be re-equipped and reorganised to cope with modern conditions. There is no guarantee in this scheme that the second phase will follow the first.
There are already some misgivings that the scheme will not work. The behavior of various elements in this industry is quite different. Some cotton firms have made a distinguished attempt to reorganise and re-equip their industry. They will be called upon to pay heavy sums for these levies to re-equip their less efficient competitors; and they may be reluctant to do so. There seems to me to be no guarantee, unless you integrate the two main parts of the scheme, that the elimination of excess capacity will automatically be followed by re-equipment and reorganisation. I beg the Government to pay some attention to this aspect of the matter, because unless they do, the whole thing may go the same way as the pre-war attempt—I think it was called the Cotton Spindles Act—by which public money was paid out to eliminate excess capacity, but which did nothing at all to modernise the industry; and here we are again faced with the same problem.
I should like to say a word or two about the method by which the payments are going to be made to the operatives who are displaced from their jobs by reason of the elimination of the excess capacity. It is, I think, unfair and undesirable that these weekly payments should be conditional upon not securing other employment. The payments for redundant, excess or scrapped plant will be cash payments. The payments to officials who are displaced will, I assume, be cash compensation payments. But the payments to the operatives who lose their jobs will be weekly doles, as I understand it, conditional in part at any rate, upon their not getting other employment. This is a most undesirable feature of the scheme, which will discourage people from seeking new employment, and I think it should be eliminated.
462
The second point that I think we should consider is whether it is safe and desirable to leave this entirely to voluntary agreements. Are we not going to be entitled to see the kind of plan upon which public money is to be expended? Did I understand the noble Earl to say that later on these schemes would come before the House for approval? If that is so, it is most welcome.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: They have to go before both Houses for approval. And what I think I told your Lordships was that in regard to the three main sections of spinning, doubling and weaving, it is hoped that they will all be ready before the end of July.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: That is most welcome information. And I take it that it will be open to Parliament to criticise and express a view. Therefore, perhaps we can leave this part of the examination of the matter until we actually see the schemes. It is, in my view, important that the nature of the scheme should be examined by Parliament before public expenditure is embarked upon.
A further matter is that there is no mention in the Bill of the social aspect of the redundancy provisions. This industry, as the noble Earl rightly said, is concentrated in one part of the country; and not only that, but in many cases whole communities are almost wholly dependent upon it. In closing down these plants there are considerations to be borne in mind other than the actual financial or efficiency standards of the various units concerned; there are the social effects. To close down plants which would involve the virtual loss of employment by a large part of a whole old-established community is a serious thing to contemplate, particularly if it takes place as the result of an imposed scheme. I think the Government would be wise to insist that that aspect of the matter should be well borne in mind when these schemes come up for examination.
I wish it had been possible for the noble Earl to say something also about what steps the Government are taking to provide alternative employment. The record of the Government in Lancashire and territories adjoining is, in this regard, not a very good one; the provision of

463
alternative employment and the encouragement of the growth of development areas in this part of the country has been most disappointing. It would be a sad thing if, with the expenditure of this amount of public money on a major attempt to deal with this industry, there were not side by side with it a really big scheme for the provision of alternative employment. That is a policy which has proved highly successful in other parts of the country. In Cumberland, in South Wales and on the North-East Coast this policy of the development area has been a resounding success; and this is the sort of lesson that we should apply to dealing with this problem of Lancashire.
In making these comments on, and possibly criticisms of, this plan, I do so in a constructive sense. I regret very much that the Bill is not of a more cohesive type; that it is not a more courageous attempt to enter into partnership with this industry and to see it through over a longer term. It is most undesirable that we should continually see this spectacle of the refusal of the Government to recognise the problems of an industry until it has almost expired, and then to come forward with doles and help in this form. A constructive partnership through the years, it seems to me, would have been a much better policy. But perhaps this is the beginning of something new and something better, and I think we all have a duty to try to make it so.
3.49 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I am happy to find myself in the position of following the noble Lord who has just sat down, because we should at least be in agreement that this is not a Party question. He speaks as one who has in the past been a guardian of the workers' interests, when in the Socialist Government, and he now speaks with the knowledge of a large employer in the textile industry. I am glad to see in his place my noble friend Lord Rochdale, who is to be charged with a high role of great responsibility in the carrying out of this measure, and we wish him well in his efforts. The noble Earl, in moving this Bill, succeeded, in the time at his disposal, in explaining to us with clarity its
464
provisions, and I am sure they will have convinced all who heard him of the justification for action.
For myself, I intervene to say that I support the Bill but with misgivings of some of its proposals, and with reservations about others. I have no financial interest in the cotton trade, but I have alt my life been associated with the wool textile industry. The problems which are dealt with in the Bill will raise precedents which, let us not deceive ourselves, will have possible great effects in many of the light industries in this country at some future time. It is because of my interest in light industry that I intervene, and also because we are rightly the guardians of the taxpayer. This is a proposal to spend £30 million-plus of the public money in subvention to an industry. The noble Earl made reference to the urgent need for it. He also made reference to the great historical achievements of this industry and its great contribution to our past industrial greatness. Some are apt to forget the great contribution it made to our resources in its early days and how it added to our international competitive power. At any rate, to-day there will be no argument that it merits some action.
The White Paper gave indication of the desirability of its contraction. There appears to be some confusion. We talk of contraction in the industry, and yet hope for increased volume. There have been full discussions on the Bill in another place. Indeed, with great diligence I have read all the Hansard reports on it, and I found them extremely interesting, because so many angles of the effects of this proposal were naturally brought up. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade dealt with skill, patience and clarity with most of the problems that were raised in this matter. The causes which bring about this situation are increasing development of the industry and also, to some extent, increasing imports. The cotton trade is necessarily one dependent upon the triangular and multiangular trade. But it brings up all sorts of questions—basically, as the noble Earl said, respect for the Commonwealth Preferences. He avoided reference to the shackles of G.A.T.T., and uncertainties now arise about the European Free Trade Area proposals. He referred to the Hong Kong

465
Agreement, but there is no specified duration for that. There is no assurance that it will be implemented, and still less that Pakistan and India will follow, as hoped.
Frankly, it is really tariff making which brings this problem about, and I want to emphasise that statesmen will need to recognise that there is a fundamental point here. Low-cost Asiatic wages are something which will have to be recognised in tariff making at some point. That strikes us at this moment when we are proposing to vote a large amount of public money to assist the reorganisation of this industry. There must be recognition in tariff making that you can have a low freight and high wage content product or a high freight and a small wage content product. Textiles are an example of the former; cement and metal products of the latter. Freight gives them a larger protection which is not afforded to the low freight content in the light industries.
May I remind your Lordships that public money has been voted—I quote from another place—amounting to £260 million a year in subsidies to agriculture and in other subventions. The amount dealt with in this scheme is £30 million-plus spread over five years. It is not big, but it is an important precedent. The principle of compensation to workers is accepted. It is not a large amount, and undoubtedly requires to be agreed to as the Government have asked. But surely the hardships have been exaggerated, and also the specialised skill. The noble Earl referred to mule spinning, which has been obsolete for years. The operatives have been continuing to work in an industry which they know is bound to be faced with death. There is no obligation for operatives to work in those conditions.
On this question of skill, I cannot avoid supporting my suggestions by an illustration from the United States. We have the example there of the tremendous shrinkage in the equipment which has taken place, admittedly contributed to, to some extent, by the movement from the Northern to the Southern states. It emptied whole towns like Fall River and New Bedford, and the same problem arises elsewhere as has been growing here. But it was different because there was a tariff protection. In Amoseag, New Hampshire, there was one mill with over 600,000 spindles and 23,000 looms
466
(and that is probably three times as big as anything in Lancashire) which was completely dismantled.
Lurid pictures have been drawn of the rapacious employers exploiting oppressed workers. But who are the managers and owners of these mills? The managers in the main are men who have risen from the bottom themselves to positions of responsibility. All honour to their achievement! Who are the owners? They are millions of small shareholders, largely workers in Lancashire, who have subscribed to the capital of these mills, and it is being wrongly represented that it is the wealthy owners who control all the mills. Attention has also been drawn to the high salaries of these managers and also to the compensation of directors. There are contractual agreements under a three-years' election of directors. After all, these amounts are small compared with the fantastic earnings of well-known entertainers, those curvacious sexy sirens who get these high monies from the T.V. viewers and the readers of the pornographic high-circulation Press. There should be no misunderstanding about who are the people concerned.
I turn to the provisions of the Bill and my own objections. There is no time to cover the whole industry, and I will take the opportunity of confining myself to one section as an illustration; that is the spinning, which is a pivotal section in the industry. I would here insert that I hope the noble Earl, in replying, will indicate what is going to happen if the amounts of machinery offered for elimination fail to come up to the minimum required. Is the Whole scheme then to fall to the ground? The White Paper suggested that, out of 24 million spindles, 12 million were considered redundant. I venture to suggest that it is not a question of the number of spindles or the amount of machinery: the real point is that there should be measurement by the running time of the machinery which is installed. There should, of course, be measurement of the output of the workers, but the operation of these machines must be multi-shift. International competition decides this matter.
I must ask your Lordships' indulgence if I quote in order to make clear what I am trying to bring out: that it is not the

467
amount of machinery that is installed; it is the hours that that machinery operates. That is obvious. It is recorded that in the United States, in cotton spinning, the active spindles worked, on an average, in 1956–57 6,000 hours-odd; in Germany 4,000 hours; in Japan 4,800 hours; in Hong Kong 8,000 hours; and in the United Kingdom 2,100 hours. This means that the machinery, if it is to be properly used, must run multi-shift. That, of course, raises many social problems. Until recently there was in Lancashire, among the organised workers, a refusal to work shifts, even to work overtime; they refused to take the money when it was being offered. Fortunately, wisdom has now come, and that attitude has recently been modified.
But, again, if this means that there is now to be a 40-hour shift to be paid at 45 hours, obviously the money we propose voting today or supporting today is going to be thrown away. I do not know whether or not it can be argued that much of the agricultural subsidies are wasted, but in this case it would be clear that that would happen. There are social inconveniences which have got to be faced. Very naturally, people do not like starting work at six o'clock in the morning, which means an early start from home, or finishing at ten o'clock at night in the case of women.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I wonder why they should like it.
LORD BARNBY: The only comment I would make on that to the noble Viscount is that, curiously enough, in a high standard state like the United States, where there is a high standard of living, it is readily accepted that people work round the clock; and, of course, in many cases, six days a week. It seems to suit their convenience that they earn the money. That must be the answer. I make no defence of it; I am stating facts. The whole thing is whether we can meet the competition from abroad. That is the point.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I do not think this applies specifically to the weaving and spinning industries; but when we talk about hours like that the fact is that we keep in touch with trade union friends in the United
468
States of America, and we get bulletins from the American Embassy here. There are many trade union agreements being operated in the United States with hours of no more than 34 or 35 a week.
LORD BARNBY: I take it that the noble Viscount is referring to hours worked by individual operatives. The point I was making was the hours for which the machinery runs. It cannot compete with foreign competition unless there is this full running.
Another point I wish to make is that the import of machinery is essential if it is evident to employers that, in spite of the high efficiency of much British machinery, foreign machinery is particularly suitable. I hope the noble Earl will give some assurance on that point, because there have been suggestions that this will be accompanied by steps by Her Majesty's Government to limit the importation of particularly suitable foreign machinery.
I have two further points, and I would ask your Lordships' indulgence in putting them. The first is (this has been emphasised very strongly in another place, and it is an obvious thing to anybody who looks at it intelligently) that if we are going to use public money to put new machinery into an old shell, where it cannot possibly run continuously or effectively, we might as well throw the money away. That fact must be recognised. I earnestly hope that the noble Earl will consider, with his colleagues, some supplementary arrangements whereby public assistance will be made available in some way, as has been done through the development areas, so that suitable appropriate single-storey buildings are available to house the machinery which it is intended shall put the industry on its feet.
That brings me to the question of what is going to be the future of the multi-storey building. There was much stress in another place too, on the problem of the disused obsolete mills. It was suggested that they should be removed at the cost of the owners. I am glad that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade pointed out the inequity of such a course, as against the removal of slag-heaps or old dwellings, which, in the interests of the community, might appropriately be removed. Surely

469
it would be unfair to place on individuals, in this case on the individual mills which would be affected under this scheme, responsibility for removing these old mills when manifestly it must be something for which the community as a whole should take responsibility. It is obvious that in many of these towns the space occupied by these old buildings could well be used for housing, and I think that under Section 26 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, there are powers.
I hope that in the course of the Passage of the Bill the noble Earl may give some reference to up-to-date thoughts of the Government, beyond those in their minds when it left the other place, and will tell us what are the intentions which my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade promised to look into with regard to this matter. The Commons debate contained a moving picture of amenity devastation and human anxieties of a sad past. In spite of some proposals in the Bill, it is a worthy attack on a vital problem and it gives a promise for the future. All those who are associated with the textile industry must have a strong sense of concern about how this scheme will work out. I think that they will hope that there will be a response to the appeal which the noble Earl has made, and for which the noble Lord has such a high responsibility. Perhaps the words of the familiar hymn would seem appropriate:
"The strife is fierce, the warfare long;
Falls on the ear the distant triumph song,
Then hearts are stout again, and arms are strong."
May that be the future of the cotton industry! My Lords, I support the Bill.
4.12 p.m.
LORD DARWEN: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston has already dealt very ably, if I may say so, with the detailed provisions of the Bill before your Lordships' House, and I should prefer to look at this matter from a slightly different angle. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, is going to find any answer to his comments in what I have to say; I think possibly he may do so. I began my working life as a weaver in a cotton mill. I was 16 at the time, and for ten years—the ten most impressionable years
470
of young manhood—I had as my place of work a cotton mill. I was at that time the sole representative of the fourth generation of my family to be engaged in the cotton trade.
I hope noble Lords will forgive me for these autobiographical details, and if they detect a certain note of pride in the mention of them they will not be wrong. On the other hand, I must not mislead your Lordships into supposing that, because I speak from these Benches, and because I have mentioned the fact that I began my working life as a weaver, I am an ex-trade union member. In fact my great grandfather founded the firm of which my grandfather and my father were, in turn, managing directors, and of which eventually I myself became a director. So that, whatever first-hand experience I have of the cotton trade—I am afraid that it is not very profound and not very recent—is that of an employer, rather than an employee. I hope that these few introductory remarks will lend a kind of perspective to the attitude that I adopt towards the Bill. In short, my attitude is that the Bill is belated and perpetuates a state of uncertainty which prevails, and has prevailed, in the industry for many years.
The White Paper shows that the principal cause of the decline in the cotton industry has been the continuous loss of export trade. Roughly speaking, despite minor booms, this process has been going on since 1914. In this connection, I well remember the vituperative comments which were heaped upon those Lancastrians who ventured out into the countries of the Far East, into India and China and Japan, and sold their heritage of skill to those peoples. But, looking back, the industrialisation of these and other parts of the world was inevitable; and whether the motive of these pioneers was a handful of silver or better living conditions for starving millions is, in the particular context in which I am speaking, hardly relevant. The point is that the changes had to come and the markets were bound to be lost to Lancashire.
During the 'thirties my father invited Gandhi to visit our factory and to stay with us at our home. He did so with a view to discussing with the Indian leader the possibility of raising the boycott. At that time, things were far from good in Lancashire. The average wage for

471
weavers was something around 35s. for four looms—a good weaver might earn £2—and there was a good deal of unemployment. Gandhi asked to see some of the dwellings in which the cotton workers lived and of course this was arranged. But in the way that these things happen, the best and neatest homes were chosen, and the house-proud Lancastrians made sure that, whatever hardships they might be suffering, they still maintained a high standard of housewifery and were the best of hosts. The result was that Gandhi was not at all impressed; and he told us later in discussion that if we called this poverty we had no conception of the poverty in the Far East, and he compared the conditions of the Lancashire weaver, in receipt of 35s., with the conditions of the peasant in India. He suggested that the peasant would regard the conditions of the weaver as absolute luxury compared with the mud huts and mats and the empty rice bowl which were the lot of the Indian at that time—and, in many cases, I am afraid, still are to this day.
I have digressed a little, but perhaps what I have said illustrates the inevitableness of the shrinkage of Lancashire's trade. During the 1930s many employers hung on, using obsolete machinery, unable to re-equip, always "in the red" with the bank and taking orders at less than cost, but—and I would emphasise this—feeling a responsibility towards their workers to keep going as long as possible. In my experience, this feeling was a very real thing. Even the miserable wages of the cotton operatives at that time were wealth compared to the dole. A great deal of criticism has been levied against Lancashire employers and your Lordships will be aware that although I am no longer a cotton employer I am speaking very much as if I were one, because I have that sympathy.
The employers have been freely criticised, and I should like to say a few words in defence of their action, or inaction. They have been criticised for lack of foresight and initiative in re-equipping with modern looms, of which we have heard a great deal. It should be remembered, however, that when automatic looms were being installed abroad Lancashire was losing trade at a crippling rate; and to-day the value of
472
exports of textiles is little more than one-twentieth of what it was in 1914. I have seen it stated that the exports have been halved in each decade since that date. So not only was there a lack of money, but there was also, very naturally, a lack of confidence. Thus there was no statistical or psychological inducement for capital to be attracted into the industry from outside.
In the 1920s machinery was still sound and, in the hands of skilled operatives, versatile; and the unions, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, were opposed to the two-shift system, which was essential to the re-equipment with automatic looms. By the 1930s most employers were well aware of the desirability of re-equipping but, as I have said, they had not the money. The war years provided no opportunity, and then came a chance in the peak period—1951. But there was still a great deal of uncertainty as to the degree to which the Asian countries were going to take over the markets in this country. This state of affairs perpetuated the lack of confidence in the future of the Lancashire cotton trade so that most manufacturers adopted a wait-and-see policy. Admittedly this may have been a moment when there might have been more action. Possibly it was a mistake not to go in for more wholesale re-equipment at that time; but the failure to do so is very understandable in the circumstances. Had all the mills been re-equipped at that time, we should not have seen a situation so greatly different from that which we have to-day, because there would still have been the great loss of export trade which nothing in the way of re-equipment could have arrested; and the extent to which we should have been in a position to compete with the cloth produced in Hong Kong, India or Pakistan is doubtful.
That brings me to the second major factor in the decline of the trade—namely, the rising imports from the Asian Commonwealth countries. During the last six or seven years the two processes—the shrinking export markets and the increasing imports—have taken a dual toll of trade from the industry, and they are responsible, or mainly responsible, for its present plight. So my point is that, even if employers had taken a bold course in 1951 and re-equipped, given the lack of consideration which Her

473
Majesty's Government have displayed most of them would have been no better off, and would perhaps have been even worse off, than they are to-day. The Asian countries would still have reached the point where they could not only satisfy their home markets but could enter the European markets, with cloth produced on better machinery and with much lower labour costs.
One third factor which is responsible for the decline in trade concerns the home market. The increasing use of synthetic fibres has meant that where the demand for textiles has greatly increased, as indeed it has in the home market, largely because of the improved standard of living, cotton has not been able to claim a share of the increased trade to the extent which might have been expected if the new developments had not come. What is now proposed by Her Majesty's Government may—I hope will—do something to improve the position of the cotton trade; but, as I have said, it is ill-timed and laced with uncertainty. If it had come sooner much more might have been achieved, possibly without cost to the taxpayer. If it were more certain in operation I believe there would be a better chance of restoring confidence in an industry which has done so much to provide this country with the sinews of our greatness.
As it is, however, what confidence can the industry have in the present Agreement with the Asian part of the Commonwealth?—because it is quite un-certain how long that Agreement can last. It is a purely temporary agreement and there is no certainty that it can be continued. The question arises whether it can continue long enough for the re-equipment that is necessary to be paid for; or whether, to look at the matter from the individual worker's standpoint, the cotton worker who is courageous enough to stay on in the trade until he is too old to make a change may not be laid off without even having the compensation to which, under somewhat uncertain conditions, under the Government's plan he would be entitled. I admit that there is a great difficulty here, because in our view—I think I may speak as from these Benches—it is only right that we should allow the Asian countries to raise their standard of living. Indeed, it can be
474
said that until they do so there cannot be any parity of competition. As it is now, the most modern mill will not be able to compete with Asian products until wages in places like Hong Kong and India reach a level which approximates to that of our own.
Other industries—agriculture has been mentioned; and of course the nationalised industries of coal and the railways—have received a considerable amount of Government help; and there are yet other industries which I believe are hoping to get it. But Lancashire, it seems to me, has all along been treated almost as an outsider, and this belated recognition of a responsibility by the present Government smacks to me of a sort of pension scheme—though this time it is not for old people but for an industry which has, in truth, deserved better. My Lords, although I am not confident that the present Bill is sufficiently thoroughgoing or clear-cut, I nevertheless very much hope that, in spite of my misgivings, it may achieve something to improve the position of the industry.
4.33 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, only for a moment, and through the courtesy of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, will I detain your Lordships on two points. The first main point is that the Bill does not breach the principle of free entry of Commonwealth goods which was laid down in Ottawa in 1932. It must have been a difficult decision for Her Majesty's Government to take, because one is aware that the implementation of that principle is indeed one of the causes of the need for the present Bill. Indeed, we know that there is a voluntary agreement with Hong Kong and prospects of voluntary agreements with India and Pakistan. As my noble friend Lord Barnby said, there is no security in those agreements as to their execution; nor is there certainty of the length of time which the Hong Kong agreement will be in operation. But, in spite of those unknowns, I think that those of us who believe in the entity of the Commonwealth, economic and political, must rejoice that Her Majesty's Government have faced that difficulty and have come down without any doubt at all upon the side of maintaining that principle.

475
The second point I would touch on for a moment is the question of compensation for redundancy. It seems to me that here Lancashire has a chance of being in the van of what I would term the new industrial outlook, where men have, as far as possible, security of work and compensation when they are deprived of work through the change of economic circumstances of our country. I believe that many of your Lordships, like myself, must have felt shocked in days gone by that a man who had worked hard all his life in industry was very often only one hour away from unemployment. Later on it was a week. Now it is—and I think we all, on all sides of your Lordships' House, must rejoice—in the thoughts of all those who are responsible for trade unions, who are in management, or who are partners and shareholders in industry, that their partnership should be expressed in terms of advantage for all and security for all; and this Bill gives a chance of Lancashire being in the van of the movement of what I would term the new outlook on industrial security. So, with those two comments, I should like to give support to the Bill which Her Majesty's Government now bring forward.
4.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I first say that I associate myself with the previous speakers in the tribute to the clarity with which the Bill was explained. We could be under no illusion at all as to the limited nature of the Bill, after we had listened to that explanation. We have had a most interesting speech from my noble friend Lord Darwen, based upon not only his personal experience but the traditions and experience of his father and forbears. I have not any experience like that to offer, but I am bound to say that I have a certain nostalgic feeling about these discussions to-day, because I sat in the chair of the Committee set up by Mr. William Graham in 1929 for about six or seven months, inquiring into the difficulties of the cotton industry.
I have the Report of that Committee in front of me to-day. I promise your Lordships at once that I am not going to quote from it. I have re-read it again very carefully, and I am the only surviving member of the Committee. It seems
476
to have had in its set-up much of the kind of feeling that is behind the words that have been spoken to-day with regard to cotton. There was serving on it a leading finance, shipping and commercial magnate who became a great friend of mine afterwards, Sir Alan Anderson; there was an accountant, Sir William McLintock; and there was a trade unionist who also happened to be a friend of mine and who was associated with the miners' union, just as the trade union representative who, it is now forecast, will be on the new body—the same sort of thing. We went into the whole position of the cotton industry month after month. Finally, because of the London Naval Conference, the chair was taken over by the late John Clynes.
I must say that as I hear the reports of the condition of the industry which are really summarised in the White Paper which preceded the Bill, I am not surprised. The 1929 depression was the first really deep depression that had come upon the industry in a cumulative form. Up to 1914 and the opening of the war, the cotton industry in Lancashire was growing all the time. It seems strange to look back upon it. Then came the war. When you deal with some of the great industrial problems of Britain you must not forget that the disturbance of the two great wars which we have had to fight for liberty and the cost it has entailed, has had a remarkable effect on both our industrial organisation and our industrial and financial resources. Nevertheless, there was the usual sort of thing that you get after a war and the period of recession from the purchase of this or that type of commodity produced by industry.
There was a boom in 1920, and it is as well for us to remember that the cotton industry to-day still suffers from the damage done to the industry then—the boom of 1920 and the awful financial manipulations. Still, as I look at it to-day, I find that in the basis structure of the industry none of the things that we discovered as a Committee in 1929–30 have really been remedied to any great extent. Mind you, I agree with my noble friend Lord Darwen that very unfair criticism was levelled at individual managers and directors or owners of certain mills, because some of them had been sufficiently enterprising, in the face of the

477
greatest possible difficulty, in introducing some form of modernisation.
On the other hand, I am bound to say from my recollection that all the witnesses that came before the inquiry of 1929 struck me, whether they came from the labour or the capitalist side, as being extraordinarily conservative. We suffer now from the very things we pointed out then. You talk about the reducing of capacity, which is the first phase of the objective of the Bill. You deal with spindles and you find that there are to-day millions of spindles which are said to be surplus to present requirements. In those days of 1929 we were urging upon the industry, in order to get into some markets from which we had been largely driven, to adopt a wider use of the ring spindles instead of the mule. But mule spindles are still working to-day.
It is true that a good many additions have been made in the meantime in the use of ring spindles, and in automatic loom there have been some developments. But in the limited time since those days in which I have been able to pay attention to the cotton industry, I have not seen the advance in the substitution of the automatic loom that could have been made if the problem had been tackled properly. Noble Lords may say, why did we not make a more firm and comprehensive Report in 1930? It was largely because we did not have a Labour majority in the Government to be able to recommend the type of policy which some of us then would have liked to see initiated.
The other question raised by my noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston in his interesting speech to-day was the need, so greatly stressed in our Report, for getting the industry on a different basis of structural organisation. How did it appear to us, who examined and cross-examined the witnesses on the question? First, there was the raw cotton and the treatment of raw cotton up to the stage of its being handed over to the spinners, all the overheads, profits, transport in between, having to be met. There were the spinners with a separate organisation but always with the same problem: separate overheads, merchanting, costs and profits to be handed on to the weaver. The weavers were in exactly the same position, having all these overheads, profit to be added, and to be
478
passed on to the finishers, dyers, printers and the lot. As if that were not sufficient, they too had their overheads and profits which had to be passed on to the next stage. At every stage there was the addition of profit and the cost of transport and the special packing firms who did nothing but packing. Added to that, at the end was the whole line of merchants to take their share of the product before passing it on to an export market.
I am not at all surprised to learn to-day that a great deal of the fierce competition we are meeting is because in many places the textile industry has become vertically organised and many of these other costs can be eliminated. Take a look at the Asian trade and markets which have been referred to. It may well be that we have lost markets in India, Pakistan and Japan; but it has not always been because of special Commonwealth arrangements. In the case of India, Pakistan and Hong Kong I remember very distinctly the evidence that came before us in 1929. Even in those days a lot of British markets, in India for example—which was then, of course not divided into Pakistan and India—were lost because of the fierce competition in India from the product of the Japanese automatic loom, which had hardly been introduced to any extent in Lancashire.
When I look at the hopeful thoughts arising from the good work done by Lord Rochdale to get arrangements with Hong Kong, which may lead to similar arrangements with India and Pakistan, I am reminded that that is just what we said in 1929–30. And it is now thirty years on. In the years 1945 to 1950–51 we had here again something of the same sort of thing as happened after the other war—quite a boom in industry, and maintained for much longer than would have otherwise have been the case because of the continuance of certain measures of control, helping them in what was admittedly, of course, a sellers' market. In my view, and in the view of many other people, it has been the failure to keep some of that control in operation, despite the condition of the industry, that has helped to speed what many of us foresaw would be the inevitable result after the post-war boom had begun to decline. I think that what really closed the door was the winding up of the Raw Cotton

479
Control and the reopening the brokers' markets, instead of collective purchase and controlled distribution.
That leads us, therefore, to the present situation. I am quite sure that we cannot maintain the cotton industry in the export markets of the world at the position it holds to-day unless we can have much more modern equipment; so that one objective of the Bill is to be welcomed. But I am quite sure we cannot expand it to any great extent unless the whole basis of the industry is reorganised and we eliminate all these other intervening processes, and so on, and come into straight competition with the conditions that we, together with other people who are sending their exports abroad, have to face.
But that leads us to a great social question; because nobody who knows Lancashire at all will be able to forget how the communities have grown up in villages, in small urban districts, around what is only one of the horizontal sections of the industry. If you were to try to secure an arrangement under which you had a vertical organisation of the industry, if you were going to have it all in one centre, or in a limited number of centres, you would have to change entirely the whole communal life of those villages or urban districts. But you could go a long way towards what would be equal to vertical organisation by seeing that there was adequate amalgamation of the processes, and you could put them under the control of one firm. I do not know what the position is to-day, but I should be extremely interested to know, for instance, to what extent the Lancashire Cotton Corporation, which was already in existence after the war, has been able to cover any of this ground in its wide and often successful operations.
As to the general conditions which are to be operated under the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, has argued with some success that £30 million spread over five years does not seem a very large sum. I think that if he had put it separately, without comment upon other subventions, we could have accepted his words much more easily. But certainly he will not expect us to agree with what he said, almost as a sort of interlude in his speech, when he suggested that a
480
subsidy such as that given to agriculture is largely wasted. Believe me, the subsidy to agriculture is not wasted. It has meant an enormous fillip to industry, including some of the light industries in which the noble Lord has been interested, and in the provision of modern equipment for the farmer.
LORD BARNBY: If the noble Viscount would permit an interruption, would he care to express a view whether, should this country unfortunately be faced with an industrial depression anything like that to which he has referred as existing in 1929, the industrial population would be prepared to accept the continuance of a burden on its exports equal to the amount required to pay high subsidies on agriculture, which would raise the cost of living considerably?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Of course, if we had a depression of that kind, many people would be just as anxious to keep up the orders of the farmers to the industries of this country which, in a modern agriculture, they still need. Otherwise, there would be an even greater depression in the heavier industries of the country. As to the possibility of a depression, let me be quite frank about my gradual change of view over thirty years—and I have mentioned it once before in this House. If it had not been for the protective duties given to a large range of our industries in the last thirty years we should never have recovered from the great depression after the First Great War. Farmers and agriculture, with the exception of a small section of agriculture, would not have any protective tariff—none at all. Representatives of the Government the noble Lord supports have again and again suggested—up till now, at any rate—that a subsidy was perfectly justified in the absence of a protective tariff such as has been afforded by this country to other industries; so I hope the noble Lord will not keep that particular bee in his bonnet.
When he comes to talk about the conditions of work and labour, I think I must say this: that one thing that always comes back to me like a boomerang when he talks like that is Lancashire. It was in Rochdale in 1844 that the weavers of Rochdale gathered

481
together, twenty-eight of them, and said, "We are poor because we are robbed; and we are robbed because we are poor"; and they proceeded to lay the foundation stone of the constitution of the British consumers' Co-operative Movement—now an enormous organisation. It was not because of the subsequent two generations of success in the cotton industry; it was because of the famine of the hungry 'forties: and if anybody wants to try to deal with the present situation by reducing the standard of life, or the hours of work, or the conditions of shifts in employment, then I think he would be making a vast mistake, because it would do the industry no good.
I was not at all surprised to see a Member of Parliament say—I must not quote too much from another place, but I may make just a passing reference to it—that he had never yet reconciled himself to the adoption of a three-shift system for women. In discussing the question of modernisation, such matters as that have to be taken into close account; for in the last few weeks, since the White Paper has been issued, there has been a great deal of talk about the three-shift system as well as the two-shift system. In fact, it is already necessary, as everybody knows, if the automatic loom is to be operated.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, will the noble Viscount permit me to intervene? Is he suggesting that the three-shift system, if worked, must necessarily be worked by females, instead of having two shifts worked by females and one by males?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am not suggesting anything in detail on a matter like this. I am talking on principle. I am saying that many people hold that it is a bad thing to work three shifts in an industry where women are employed. It may well be that many people do not agree with me on that. The only women who have to work on a three-shift system are those in the nursing profession. There they certainly have to do that. But in this matter of employment, I should think the answer is, "No."
With regard to administration, I was struck by what my noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston said about the phasing of these proposals; and this
482
point was emphasised by what my noble friend Lord Darwen said about uncertainty. If any real good is to be done by this scheme, then we must pay attention to this question of uncertainty. I do not think anybody can deny that the scheme is belated. If we look at the debate in another place in 1954, in the time of the previous Conservative Government, and read the case put on behalf of the cotton industry for something being done immediately, and consider how the position has deteriorated since then, it is hard not to accuse the Government of being very belated in their operations. As regards uncertainty, it seems to me that under the scheme so much depends on whether or not individuals in the industry are willing to co-operate in it. If they are not willing, then the scheme falls, and we go on to the next stage of the general decline of the industry. I do not think that the scheme is capable of giving us much hope for the recovery of the industry to enable it to begin to expand again in production and export. But if the schemes are to be laid before us in four or five weeks' time, and we know then what is the response within the industry, perhaps we shall be able to begin to form a better judgment on the matter.
The other point I want to raise concerns compensation. When I heard the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, explain how compensation to the workers is to be worked, I thought that, whilst it is perfectly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said, that there has been a vast change in conditions, and workers can be made mobile, in an industry like this, rooted for generations in families of workers, to pay compensation, where mills are closed down, on the basis of a weekly payment for a few weeks, as a sort of addition to unemployment benefit, seems a very mean and niggardly way of dealing with the matter. It certainly is not good enough, and I hope that something more will be done. I would add only one other word. To-morrow week we shall have the opportunity, on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Ebury, of debating the question of the continued uncertainty of the limits of State control. When he comes to consider what he is going to say on this uncertainty, I hope that he will be able to say something about the uncertainty in the cotton industry without control.
5.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am grateful for the support which your Lordships have given to this Bill. The only general criticisms have been that it is too late—that it ought to have been introduced, long ago; and that it is too limited—it does not go far enough. As there was no general vein of opposition running through the debate, I think the best I can do is to try to deal separately with the various interesting questions which have been raised by those of your Lordships who have spoken.
The last matter raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, was also alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, near the beginning of his speech—namely, the compensation to be paid to operatives who are displaced by a redundancy scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston did not approve of weekly payments being made or being in any way dependent on the subsequent employment of the operatives in other industries. The Government feel very decidely, and always have, that they ought not to interfere or try to impose any ideas of their own on the arrangements which are made about compensation. What we insist upon is that before any compensation is paid to the owners of scrap machinery under a redundancy scheme, the President of the Board of Trade shall first be satisfied that arrangements have been made to compensate the workers and that these arrangements have been agreed to by the trade unions and the employers.
I would call your Lordships' attention to Clause 1, subsection (2) (c), because it was not in the Bill when first printed. It was an Amendment inserted in another place. It provides:
"that bodies representing the interests of a majority of the persons employed in the section have agreed to those arrangements so far as they relate to persons whose interests are represented by those bodies."
We feel that it is very important that the agreement should be freely arrived at by the people concerned, the employers and the trade unions, without Government pressure and interference. Therefore I am not expressing any view of my own on the merits of the different kinds of compensation. What I understand has
484
been agreed to is that half the compensation shall be in a lump sum and the other half in weekly payments. Although I do not want to go into details, which may not yet be fully worked out by the parties concerned, I think that what they have in mind is that the amount of compensation should depend on the number of years during which a worker has been employed. A worker aged 30 would get less than a worker aged 50, who in turn would get less than a worker aged 65. After compensation has been ascertained, the idea is that half should be paid in a lump sum and the other half in weekly payments. I have no doubt that when the discussions are finally concluded—I 'understand that there are still a few points to be cleared up—we shall be able to study the proposals as a whole: but the Government do not propose, provided they are agreed to by the trade unions, to criticise the results or do other than make it a condition, as we certainly shall do, that compensation is paid on those agreed plans.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that point, may I say how grateful I am to him for making that clear? I understand that the Government will not insist that some part of the payment shall be by weekly payments.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, my Lords, certainly not. The Government will agree to that because it has been agreed to by the trade unions, but the Government will not take the initiative in prescribing the nature of the compensation. The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, spoke about the social aspect of the redundancy provisions, and if I may I would say a word on that. I know that suggestions have been made that account should have been taken of the local unemployment position or the extent to which a locality is dependent on cotton in determining which mills shall be closed under reorganisation schemes, but we do not think that this is acceptable as part of this policy. While we are fully aware of the importance of bringing new employment to the cotton areas, any proposals to write social factors into the conditions for determining which capacity shall be eliminated would, I think, cut right across the whole object of bringing about reorganisation of the cotton industry on really efficient lines. If we did

485
not stick to the principle of achieving an efficient industry when the job is done, it would, in our view, endanger the jobs of many thousands of people who will continue to work in the cotton industry. I think it must be left to firms themselves to decide whether or not to accept the offer of compensation for scrapping excess capacity; and I think it would be wrong to withhold compensation from firms which came to the conclusion that their interests lay in accepting the offer rather than struggling on in the industry.
Perhaps this question should be considered together with the other matter dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, in his speech—namely, measures to provide alternative employment. I was grateful to hear the noble Lord say that the other development area schemes apart from Lancashire have been a resounding success, because that is not always said by the Party opposite; I am glad to hear that he thinks that they have. However, I do not think that the development area in North-East Lancashire has been other than a success; a great deal has already been done there towards establishing new industries.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: It is rather small.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes. But the D.A.T.A.C. provisions, as the noble Lord knows, have been extended to a large number of cotton towns, and we are hoping to do a good deal more there. I should perhaps have said something about this in my opening speech if I had not felt that it might be better to wait and see if any of your Lordships were interested. It is, I think, wrong to overlook the great diversification of economy in Lancashire which has taken place in recent years. The total numbers of those wholly unemployed in the cotton towns at the present time is less than in a good many other areas, and short-time working in the cotton industry has been falling considerably, as have the unemployment figures, in a number of cotton towns. So we cannot necessarily be expected to give absolute priority to the cotton areas over other areas in Great Britain where existing unemployment is much higher. But with that proviso, Lancashire's need for more new industry to deal with whatever lack of employment may eventually arise
486
from reorganisation schemes is recognised and everything will be done to meet it.
Some particular figures and examples were given by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary in another place. He mentioned the Michelin and Mullard factories at Burnley, in particular, one of which is employing 1,000 men; and he also referred to the D.A.T.A.C. list, which includes Accrington, Blackburn, the Oldham district and the Rochdale district, and to which has now been added Todmorden. The D.A.T.A.C. procedure is still in its early stages, but a number of applications are being considered and it is certainly a fundamental part of our industrial policy that we should do whatever we can to create a greater diversity of employment in these towns.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, asked a number of questions about various matters, and perhaps the most important was that of working two or three shifts, which was also referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, said about the necessity, as far as possible, of making the machines work all the time in order that we may be really competitive. With regard to the operatives, again I did not deal with this in my original remarks because I do not think the trade unions in Lancashire have ever made any difficulty, except in cases where they think that the machinery is out of date, about agreeing to a two or three shift system of working. I think it is generally recognised in Lancashire that the future of this industry and its ability to compete will depend on having new automatic machines which can be worked all day, and possibly all night, and that will involve a shift system.
But with regard to the particular question of women, which was raised in the course of the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough—and I think he was interrupted by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, on this point—I must make it clear that under the Factories Acts women are not allowed to work a night shift. I know they do in hospitals—and I do not know how we should get on without them—but a hospital is not a factory. So far as factories are concerned, I think the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough,

487
referred to a Member of another place who said that he could not agree with women working at night. It does not matter whether this Member agreed or not; it is contrary to the law and cannot be done under the Factories Acts.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, referred to Hong Kong, saying that he was not sure whether the agreement would be implemented. I think that it is only right and fair to Hong Kong to say that everyone should realise that their undertaking is working now. I do not know whether the noble Lord was suggesting that it might not be renewed after the end of the period.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, it is not that I criticised whether it would be implemented, but that I wanted to know for what duration its existence would continue.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: For the duration that has been agreed. I hope the noble Lord is not suggesting that Hong Kong will run out of the agreement before the expiry of the agreed period, because that would be unfair to Hong Kong, and it might be undesirable if the impression were given that any of us thought that. I do not think there is any likelihood of that happening.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: It is only for three years.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes. That is why I mentioned the agreed period, which is three years.
LORD BARNBY: I do not think I insinuated that Hong Kong would discontinue with that agreement, but I was referring to the expiry of the time of three years.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I only wanted to make it clear that when the noble Lord asked if the idea was going to be implemented, there was no question of anybody suggesting that Hong Kong intended to break it and not to carry out their undertakings. The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, also asked what would happen if the minimum target of excess machinery scrapped under a reorganisation scheme is not reached by the number of applications which will be made.
488
Technically, of course, there is power in the Bill for a scheme to be revoked and a new one introduced. But, as I have explained, the President of the Board of Trade does not intend to agree to the expenditure of public money on this scheme unless he is satisfied that a sufficient amount of excess machinery is going to be scrapped to justify the expenditure. If, in the event envisaged by my noble friend—which I hope will not occur—there were not enough applications and not enough decisions to scrap in order to reach the minimum target set by the scheme, then the result would be that the scheme would fall down and not be implemented, and the cotton industry would have lost the opportunity which it now has of ridding itself of this excess machinery. Therefore, I hope very much that they will not miss that opportunity. Perhaps the alternative might be that another scheme, imposed later by a different Government upon the industry, would be tried. I do not know. But it would mean that the industry would have missed the bus so far as this Bill is concerned.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question I intended to ask on scrapping? I am quite satisfied with the answer the noble Earl has made on that point. When the schemes are made for scrapping, is there to be anything in them with regard to the use made of the machinery which is to go out of use? Are the machines to be sold to competitors abroad? Are they to be finally broken up, or what? Is there any plan as to what you are going to do with them?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: They must be scrapped. They must not be sold and used again. I understand that it is also the intention of the special committee of the Cotton Board to recommend in their schemes that if later on new machinery is put in, in applying for the 25 per cent. grant more old machinery must be scrapped in order that the new machinery may replace it. It must not be in replacement of old machinery for whose scrapping the two-thirds grant has already been paid. If it is proposed to put in new machinery in place of old which has already received a scrapping grant, then a condition will be made

489
that the greater part of the first grant must be refunded—what is called, I believe, the "claw-back."
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Darwen, for giving us the benefit of his most interesting experience as an employer, and in many other ways. When he told us about the great discrepancy between the living standards of the Indian workers and Lancashire workers at time of Gandhi, it occurred to me that the gap was even wider now, and probably a great deal wider. It certainly ought to be part of our general policy to try to raise the standard of living of backward peoples, both in the Commonwealth and elsewhere. It certainly is our hope to work towards that end. The noble Lord, Lord Darwen, ended up—this is one point on which I must disagree with him—by alluding to this Bill as a pension scheme. That is very far indeed from what it is intended to be. It is intended to be an injection, giving new life to the industry, and not to pension it off as an old out-of-date concern; in the words of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who I thought expressed it very well, to put it in the van of a new industrial outlook. That is what we are intending, and not to pension it off.
I was most interested in the debate on agriculture which took place between the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and my noble friend, Lord Barnby. I found it just as interesting as the debate on cotton, but I do not think I had better enter into it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Why not?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Because we are talking about cotton. What I thought while the noble Viscount was speaking, and also when the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, was opening, was this. In general, noble Lords opposite and we are entirely agreed both about what ought to be done and on the priorities. We are both agreed that scrapping of excess machinery should come first, and after that should follow re-equipment. Perhaps the difference is that noble Lords opposite, quite understandably, feel that a comprehensive plan should be made by the Government and carried out. When the noble Viscount, Loud Alexander of Hillsborough, was
490
speaking, he spoke about the witnesses he had interviewed in 1929. He told us how all witnesses, whether employers or workers, were the most conservative people he had ever heard. I think that that is probably still true. The people in Lancashire in the cotton industry, whether they are employers or workers, all seem to be the most conservative and individualistic people in the world, and I should not care to be the Minister in charge of a Bill imposing a comprehensive scheme of reorganisation on the cotton industry.
What the Government feel is that if you want a reasonable chance of a reorganization scheme succeeding, you must let the industry make its own scheme and help it where you can. Ideally, it may not be so logical, and it may not look so well on paper, but I think it is far more likely to work in practice, and that is what we are trying to do. We have asked the industry to prepare its own scheme, and we have told them exactly how we can help them. We have given them this chance—it may be their last chance—and I hope and pray that they will take it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I should like to apologise to him that I was not here to hear his introduction of this important Bill. I should like to ask him whether it is the Government's intention to issue White Papers prior to laying the various Orders for the different sections of the cotton industry before Parliament. I think the noble Earl would agree that the industry is a very complicated structure, and I feel that the House should be nut into the picture as to what are the Government's proposals for each section before we are asked to pass those orders. I wonder whether the noble Earl can give us that information?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not think that there would be time for another White Paper. We have had this general White Paper. We hope that these three schemes for the three sections, spinning, doubling and weaving, will be ready to be laid on the Table of both Houses before the end of July. We feel it is very important that they should be approved, if they are satisfactory, before Parliament rises for the Summer Recess. I have no doubt that

491
everything will be done to arrange for a reasonable interval between the time they are published and the time they are discussed. Obviously, we must have time to read them and learn exactly what details they contain. But that time cannot be very long, because it is now June 30, and our timetable will probably contemplate their being approved within the next three weeks, although they have not yet been drafted.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, would the noble Earl forgive just one other question? In laying the schemes before the House, will he ask his right honourable friend to give us, if possible, some indication not only of the scheme for compensation, but of what amount of refitting of the industry will follow it in the section?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The noble Lord is referring to the compensation for scrapping machinery, and not to the compensation for displaced workers?
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: For scrapping machinery.
THE EARL OF DUNDEEDetails of compensation for scrapped machinery will be in the draft reorganisation schemes. But I do not think there will be any indication in these schemes as to the number of applications which will be made later on for grants for new machinery, because the period allowed in the Bill for the making of an application is three years.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

STREET OFFENCES BILL
5.30 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the Bill to be considered on Report.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That this Report be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Clause 1:
Loitering or soliciting for purposes of prostitution
1.—(1) It shall be an offence for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution.
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "a common prostitute" and insert "any person habitually". The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I have not up to this point taken any part in this particular Bill, and I offer my apologies to the House for intruding at so late a stage. The fact is that, having studied the Bill afresh after it left this House on the Committee stage, I found myself greatly disquieted by the first subsection of Clause 1, and I set myself the task of seeing whether I could devise any Amendment, not because I alone was disquieted by the position but also because I believe that a large number of your Lordships shared my feelings in regard to it. Therefore I have put down for consideration at this late stage of the Bill the Amendment which to-day stands in my name, and which would make Clause 1 (1) read as follows:
"It shall be an offence for any person habitually to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution."
On the Committee stage my noble and learned friend Lord Denning and others had down an Amendment to insert the words "any person". The difference—and in my submission to the House it is a very substantial difference—is that in the Amendment which your Lordships are now asked to consider the word "habitually" appears for the first time. I think that that substantially changes the whole aspect.
The Amendment that I have put down is designed to deal with two matters, the one of substance, the other perhaps more of form than of substance, though not necessarily for that reason less important. The matter of substance is that, if my Amendment were adopted, the Bill would include, in the expression "any person habitually" loitering or soliciting, male prostitutes as well as female prostitutes. We are told that the main purpose of this Bill is to clean up the streets in this country; and how you clean up the streets if you succeed by this Bill in sweeping at least a majority of the women off them and giving the men prostitutes a free rein in their place, I simply do not begin to understand. It may be that I am somewhat old-fashioned in these matters, but in my view the presence of male prostitutes infesting the streets is a good deal more

493
repellent and a good deal more scandalous than the presence of the females.
I think there is this to be said, too; that one might hope that if this Amendment were accepted there would be a real, solid chance of effecting some considerable reduction not only in the number of male prostitutes on the streets, but also in the number of male prostitutes plying their nauseating trade. Because they would not be in the same position as the women, since they could not resort to any sort of adaptation of the call-girl system; nor could they have recourse to the display of advertisements to which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, called attention on the Committee stage, for the reason that if they attempted to do either of those things they would be immediately involved in the criminal law.
When this matter was discussed on a slightly differently phrased Amendment on the Committee stage, we were told that there already existed machinery under the criminal law to deal with this question of male prostitutes. I should be inclined to reply to that assertion two things: first, that there is no great harm in having a second string to your bow, particularly if the first string is proving increasingly ineffectual in its purpose. I have not the temerity to walk about the streets myself at night, but I am told by those more adventurous than myself that it is virtually impossible to walk about any street in the West End of London at night without being accosted by male prostitutes, with all the danger of blackmail that is involved in that sort of encounter. Surely, when we are dealing with this Bill—and there is nothing in the Title of the Bill to make it impossible—we ought to sweep into the net the male prostitutes who at present pollute our streets in no less degree than the females.
I may be told that it is difficult to deal with the word "habitual" in regard to the male. On that, I would say two things. I think it is right to say that in the Acts which affect them at present there appear the words "soliciting and importuning", but not the word "loitering"; and therefore, if your Lordships accepted this Amendment, you would have a new offence as regards the male prostitute of habitually loitering
494
as well as soliciting, which I submit would be a not unuseful weapon to have in your hands. You have, I think, in another context in connection with the criminal law as regards male prostitutes, the word "persistently", and I see no more difficulty in proving that a man is habitually soliciting for prostitution than in proving that he is persistently doing so. It seems to me the two are very much on a par. I should not have thought there was any greater difficulty about the police recognising an habitual male prostitute than about their recognising an habitual female prostitute. They have, in fact, their same beats, just as much as the women and the police have their beats. It seems to me that a policeman, seeing a male prostitute obviously loitering for the purpose of prostitution night after night, would be perfectly able to give evidence to a magistrate that that man had been habitually loitering for the purpose of prostitution.
My Lords, that is the point of substance, and I have put it as shortly as I can. It has been argued already at great length in the House, but not with the word "habitual" attached. The point of the word "habitual", in its application to both men and women, is that it is designed to remove the danger of some person quite innocently walking up and down a street and being arrested for loitering, and to exclude the case of a woman who, perhaps from sheer financial necessity, may once or twice go on the streets in order to earn a little money but is not properly described as a common prostitute.
The second point of this Amendment is the removal from the clause of the words "common prostitute". It might be arguable, I suppose, that "common prostitute," in effect, would apply equally to male and female prostitutes. But in such Statutes as those in which it has already been used, it has always been confined to women; and even if that were arguable I would suggest that it ought to be made quite plain that it did in this case apply to men as well as women. What I dislike in this phrase as it stands at present in this clause, "common prostitute", is that it is thrust so very much into the forefront of the battle.
I think the effect of the Amendment I suggest is really little more than drafting. None the less, I think it is important, because many people might believe that, under the clause as it at present figures in the Bill, being a common prostitute is not one of the allegations which has to be proved if and when a woman is brought up for trial. I know, of course, that this is not so; and I have no doubt that your Lordships know that one of the ingredients of the offence is that she is a common prostitute, and that that has to be proved just as much as the fact that she was loitering or soliciting in the street for the purpose of prostitution. But in the Bill as drafted it looks too much, in my view, as if it is only necessary for a policeman to point a finger at a woman and say, "You are a common prostitute. I am now going to charge you, not with being a common prostitute, but with loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution". If my Amendment were adopted, the position would be quite clear, because he would have to prove that she was habitually loitering or soliciting in the street for the purpose of prostitution.
My Amendment does not, so to speak, take the words "common prostitute" and put them right at the beginning, divorced from the rest of the offence. It makes it, I hope, quite clear that there are the four ingredients to the offence: that the woman is loitering, or soliciting, in a street for the purpose of prostitution, and that she is doing it habitually. It then becomes quite clear that that is what has to be proved. The prosecution cannot start off with a mere allegation that the woman is a common prostitute, and then, having made that allegation, prove merely that she has been loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution. I think the word "habitually" excludes—at least, it is designed to obviate—the possibility thaxt a woman who was quite innocently walking up the street might be arrested, under this clause, on suspicion of loitering or soliciting; because that woman the policeman could not prove to be habitually loitering, since he would not have seen her before, except once or, perhaps, twice. But he would know the "old-timer". Those are the people who can, and ought to be, within the four
496
corners of this Bill, and in order that they, together with, in my submission, no less certainly the male prostitute, may be subject to conditions which will at least introduce some greater degree of decency in our streets than exists to-day. I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("a common prostitute") and insert ("any person habitually").—(The Marquess of Reading.)
5.44 p.m.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I rise to support this Amendment. It is a most ingenious one. We have had a debate already on the word "person", but the addition of the word "habitually" seems to have changed the whole situation and will render the reply by the Lord Chancellor a good deal more difficult than it was the other day. I have the highest regard for the Lord Chancellor; I place him very high in affection and among great men, and frankly, I do not like seeing him used as a Home Office hack. You might think that all the wisdom of the ages was vested in the Home Office. That is a very depressing thought! Of course, you can argue the hind leg off a donkey, but at the end the hind leg remains. I must say that the other day the Lord Chancellor's dialectics over the "person versus common prostitute" Amendment was nothing else but a tour de force—it was astounding. But what gave rise to no little surprise did not convince my noble and learned friend, the great lawyer Lord Denning, on my right; nor did it convince many of your Lordships who, I am perfectly certain, as I was, were left in a quagmire of argument such as few of us were able to understand.
I consider that this Bill, which might be called the "Mayfair Benefit Bill", would be considerably improved by this Amendment, because not only does it do away with the objectionable start of the label of "common prostitute" but it includes men. I want to make a different point from that of the noble Marquess about the male prostitute. I am talking about the males who go to pick up prostitutes. I want to refer to them. I think it would do more, because it would encourage them to shift the locality of assembly, which is what this Bill is aiming to do.

497
In a previous debate it was pointed out most conclusively that prostitutes only assemble—this is axiomatic—where there are men; that they do not go there to look at each other but that they go there to meet men. Yet no word has ever been given us about, nor has any blame been attached to, the men who make prostitution so advantageous in Mayfair. Who are they? They are not local people. Where do they come from? Certainly, they come for one purpose only—namely, to pick up these women. If you can discourage them, which I believe this Amendment would do in that they would not be there habitually, it would consequently change the locality and defeat this assembly of prostitutes which, after all, is at the root of the Bill.
I think that in this measure we have an example of sex prejudice. All we are doing is, first of all, to complain of a nuisance, and then we are being exceedingly hard and harsh on one of the sexes, attributing no blame to the other, and hard on a class of women who cannot speak for themselves. We know the Lord Chancellor and we know the Home Secretary. We know them as good, decent, human, kindly people—friends of ours whom we like. I cannot help asking myself repeatedly, when I think of this Bill, who was responsible for this sadistic measure, because it comes from a sadistic mind. There are the elements of the bully in it. The atmosphere of "Holier than thou" pervades it. There is the Pharisaic outlook which I find so deplorable. There is a lack of humanity, a lack of understanding. There is no charity in it, and it is full of intolerance. To me, and I think to others, fundamentally the whole measure smells.
What is a prostitute? One who lets her body out for hire—a dreadful thing. Are we ourselves so innocent? For instance, do not lawyers let out their brains for hire? Are we not all tarred with the same brush in that we prostitute our gifts from God for gain? Is it worse to let out for hire your body, which is of the earth, earthy, than to let out one's brain, which is of the spirit, spiritual? Ethically, I find the latter the more culpable. Yet, all through this measure there is the idea that we are dealing with the untouchables, the despised and rejected, people who are sub-human. This is not so. I think we fail to remember that these girls are not
498
criminals; they are indulging in their profession by virtue of the desires of men, and for no other reason. We who are privileged to be legislators, and who can with such ease impose extra penalties on a defenceless class of women, ought to remember the saying of our Lord when He said:
"Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me."
It is all very late now. The measure is almost through, but I will return good for evil and hope that the noble and learned Viscount and the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary and all who have voted for this measure will not be kept awake at night by their conscience reminding them that they have imposed on a class of our people, whose lot is not, and never has been, a pleasant one, more misery than before. I most earnestly hope that Her Majesty's Government will not be bullied by a Department this time, but will accept this Amendment so admirably put by my noble friend., for if that is done I believe it will take away a good deal of the objection to this Bill and will help to dissipate that congregation of prostitutes, which is what we are trying to do. For we must remember the fundamental truth of the whole situation: no men, no prostitutes.
5.52 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I was prepared originally to deal with the Amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Reading. My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara has raised again the principle of this Bill, and I must spend some time upon that. I do not think I ought to spend too much, because your Lordships have approved the principle and have ratified your approval by rejecting the Amendment proposed on the Committee stage to have the words "any person."
My noble friend, Lord Brabazon of Tara has re-read his Pickwick Papers and noted the advice there given so succinctly: "Weak case—abuse plaintiff's attorney!" I should like to tell him that I do not at all resent that part of his speech, but I want to make it quite clear that I do not resile from my responsibility for this Bill. I was Home Secretary for three years. During that time I was constantly pressed by decent people

499
who found life impossible in Paddington and other places. There were deputations led by members of both Parties, and by clergymen, consisting of ordinary people. That was a state of things which I did not think it right to leave alone. I did not rush into legislation. I appointed a Committee under Sir James Wolfenden which, so far as the constitution was concerned, commanded general support. That Committee inquired into the problem. It is a problem which had been inquired into before, but I wanted to have an up-to-date inquiry; and this Bill gives legislative form to what that Committee have suggested. If that is sadistic conduct, as my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara has said, then everything that I have known and heard of the late Marquis de Sade has been completely wrong.
The position which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, takes up is one by which it is always easy to get some facile popular acclaim—to ignore the ordinary decent, well-behaved person and his troubles, and transmit sympathy and support to those who would not for a moment claim to be attempting to lead an ordinary, reasonable and decent life. I have stated before to your Lordships, and I venture to state again, that the function of the use of compulsion by legislation is to secure and preserve a decent minimum standard for ordinary people. As I have said, that was why the seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, and those who acted with him a hundred years ago, brought in compulsory process in order to keep a minimum standard of safety in our factories and mines. That is why the Government of Mr. Disraeli, followed by Governments of a different kind, introduced a minimum standard of decency in public health and the conditions under which people live. That is what this Bill does. It gets rid of what has been admitted to be a general nuisance, affecting particular neighbourhoods and also the position and reputation of London as a whole. And I ask your Lordships earnestly to consider the origin and the facts before, at this stage, you reject the result of the years of inquiry and work.
My noble friend Lord Reading has brought forward a compromise. As he told us, he had seen the difficulty which
500
was raised by the Amendment to leave out "a common prostitute" and substitute "any person". I want to make clear to your Lordships again that there is no question under the Bill as it stands of the onus on the prosecution—the burden which the police have to carry if they prosecute—being in any way lightened. They have, first, to show that the woman in question is a common prostitute—and I have discussed, and your Lordships have heard, what that connotes: a woman who commonly offers her body for reward. They then have to show that the defendant was either loitering or soliciting; and thirdly, they have to show that she was loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution. But the Bill is aimed at the nuisance created by prostitutes who ply their trade in the street, and I believe your Lordships realised and supported the necessity of identifying the woman who, as a way of life, commonly offers herself in the streets.
The main difficulty of the Amendment of the noble Marquess is a practical one—and I should like him to know that not only I but my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the Law Officers also have given it full consideration. We have all come to the conclusion that in order to sustain a charge under the language which my noble friend would substitute it would, to the best of our view, be necessary to produce fresh—I repeat, fresh—evidence every time a prostitute was charged that she solicited habitually. If the substitution were made, the habitual element could not be proved even partially by evidence on which a previous conviction had been founded.
The ground for this view would be that as the woman had been convicted and punished—and I ask my noble friend to note the point, because this is what has presented the difficulty to myself and my right honourable and learned friend—she has, on the hypothesis of my noble friend Lord Reading, been convicted of habitually soliciting or loitering and she could thereafter be convicted only in respect of an entirely fresh course of conduct which would constitute a further offence of habitually soliciting or loitering. That would mean the prostitute would have to be kept under observation for whatever period the court thought necessary to establish that a loitering and solicitation was habitual; not merely

501
before her first prosecution but before every subsequent prosecution. As a result, the prostitute would know that after every conviction there would be a "close season", during which she could solicit without being arrested while the police were obtaining evidence of a further course of conduct; and the amount of observation by the police required before an arrest could be made would be greatly increased, and the effectiveness of the enforcement of the law would be correspondingly reduced.
My noble friend made the point about male prostitutes and, my Lords, I hope that not one of your Lordships would suspect that my view in regard to male prostitutes is any less strong or less adverse than that of the noble Marquess. I think those of your Lordships who heard my speech in a debate on that aspect of affairs would be in little doubt as to my view on this point. But there is a difficulty in having both the noble Marquess's suggested provision and the provision to which he referred, Section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act, 1956. With all respect, I do not think that it is usually a good thing to have two competing strings to your bow in your bow at once; I do not think that the arrow proceeds as straightly or as clearly in these circumstances.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Or not at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess did, of course, with complete frankness and candour, remind your Lordships that under Section 32 the offence is for a man persistently to solicit or importune in a public place for an immoral purpose. I think the noble Marquess would agree with me that "habitual" and "persistent" do not mean the same thing. Under Section 32 a man commits an offence if he solicits by word or gesture a series of individuals within a relatively short period, such as a single evening. I think that that is what you want to catch in the case of the male prostitute. I think that this is a state of things in which he well deserves to be prosecuted and convicted under Section 32. But habitual solicitation implies soliciting as a habit or way of life over a longer perod, and in these circumstances I should prefer, from the point of view of administering the criminal law, to leave it as it was.
502
Some reference has been made to the customer. As I said when we were discussing this matter before, the customer does not normally solicit or loiter, and even if he did I do not think that it would ever be held that he did it for the purpose of prostitution; because, of course, there is no question of his offering his own body for reward. As to the case of the person who pesters or annoys women, I think that can be dealt with under the various Acts which I have drawn to your Lordships' attention in many cases. For these reasons, while we have considered this Amendment, and are most grateful to the noble Marquess for the time and thought that he has spent upon it, we consider that the objections which I suggest, and which your Lordships approved, to the expression" any person", though to some extent less, would not be overcome by the introduction of the word "habitually"; and as explained, the administration of a provision containing that word would give rise to practical difficulties.
At the end of the day we have to face the situation of this general nuisance which is caused to a very great extent by the large number of female prostitutes. This question has been considered time and again. Every Committee has come to the conclusion that the old provision of annoyance makes the Act a dead letter. That has been said over and over again by independent people examining it. We had to deal with that point, and now we have put before your Lordships a solution which my noble friend Lord Reading says will, in his opinion, have the effect of getting most of the prostitutes off the streets. I know the reluctance of many noble Lords to take any step that means the employment of compulsion. I ask your Lordships to say that to resile now from the course along which we have taken a considerable number of steps would be once again, because of the fear of facing our responsibilities, to condemn our fellow-citizens in London to nuisance and circumstances to which we have no right to condemn them so long as we are in part responsible for the legislation of this country. Therefore, my Lords, with the greatest respect to my noble friend, and indeed—I am sure he believes me—not merely with a forensic or rhetorical gratitude, but with

503
a real gratitude, for his applying his mind to this problem, I ask him not to press the Amendment before the House.
6.9 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I speak as one who is in favour of the principle of the Bill and as one who is as anxious as the noble and learned Viscount to remove the nuisance and annoyance that is caused in the streets of our large cities, but I must say that I find the speech of the noble and learned Viscount most unconvincing. I do not think that he dealt at all with the two main objections that exist and which the noble Marquess brought out so clearly to the clause as it stands. The first was that he is assuming, and from the experience of a great many people, assuming wrongly, that the evil is due solely to female prostitution. But there is a great amount of evidence that the nuisance we are dealing with, this infestation of the streets of certain parts of London and the big cities, is caused as much by male prostitutes as female. The Amendment is designed to secure that male prostitutes should be dealt with in the same way as females. The noble and learned Viscount said they were already dealt with under Section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act, 1956. But they are not dealt with in the same way. The noble and learned Viscount made this point on the Committee stage and I then drew attention to the fact that Section 32 did not deal with the offence of loitering. It left out loitering, and loitering is the essence of the whole thing. If one leaves out loitering one is treating male and female prostitutes in different ways.
In order to make the two offences, by male and female, comparable one would have to amend Section 32, and I see no insuperable difficulty. I imagine the noble Marquess would be very willing to have a sort of consequential Amendment in the Bill which would deal with Section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act, so as to ensure that there are not two different types of treatment for the same offence. The second difficulty is that we all find it obnoxious and repugnant to use a term of opprobrium in advance of establishing the guilt of a person. One does not say "that you, being a common receiver of stolen property, have received this stolen property". It introduces straight
504
away a note of prejudice. I accept the fact that when the common prostitute comes before the court it has to be proved that she is a common prostitute. Nevertheless, she starts off with that disability of already having been labelled. It is something over which we all have a certain feeling of repugnance. I am sorry the Government have not felt it necessary to do something to remove this feeling of repugnance that we have about labelling a person before she has been proved guilty of the label.
Finally, the noble and learned Viscount made some play of the fact that it is difficult to prove that the person is an habitual offender. "Habitual" is something that is quite well known in our criminal code. We have to deal with habitual offenders of all sorts. The term is introduced in legislation. I cannot understand the practical difference between a person who habitually loiters and solicits and the common prostitute who habitually plies her trade. I should have thought that one would have to establish the same kind of proof in both cases. The noble and learned Viscount shakes his head, but I think that that is so. In both cases one has to establish a degree of habitualness to establish the guilt of the person. I should have thought that that, in itself, was certainly not a ground for rejecting the Amendment. I hope my noble friends will support the Amendment, because we think it is right and, as has already been said, an ingenious attempt to get over a difficulty which I am sure every noble Lord in this House feels we ought to make every attempt to get over.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lord, I did not use the words, but I must ask your Lordships to face up to the fact that in my considered opinion and in the considered opinion of the Home Secretary and the Law Officers of the Crown, to make this Amendment will wreck the Bill. You must do it on that basis.
6.16 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, one substantial point the noble and learned Viscount has made against this Amendment is that it would make it difficult on the occasion of a second offence to provide the necessary proof, unless there had been a series of observations of the offender subsequent

505
to the first offence. That is why he says that this would wreck the Bill and make it impossible to administer. But to state that is to state that, under the Bill as it stands, a woman will be labelled as a common prostitute and that fact will stick to her, and it is on that account that on the second offence it will not be necessary, in effect, to prove it. That is the essential difference between the Bill as it stands and the Amendment which the noble Marquess has moved in what I consider to be a most masterly speech.
Now may I venture to make a suggestion that there is a possibility of making an Amendment which would meet both points of view? Because if I understood correctly what the noble and learned Viscount said, he saw no difficulty if, instead of the word "habitual" there were inserted the word "persistently", which, in fact, is used in certain sections of the Sexual Offences Act. I wonder whether that alteration would not reconcile both points of view and enable this measure to proceed with an accurate definition of the offence.
6.19 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I put down this Amendment, as I told your Lordships, in the hope that it might resolve a difficulty which I think was obsessing the minds of a good many noble Lords. I hoped it might provide such a solution, and I confess to more than a little disappointment, not on personal grounds but on grounds of public good, that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has not found himself able to accept it. I still believe that there is a strong feeling, not only in the House but in the country, that some form of words might still, even at this last moment, be devised which would, at least to a degree, assuage the feeling of discomfort with which so many people are, I think, attacked over this Bill. But, my Lords, my attempt has obviously failed to make any impression upon the Government.
I am not going to speculate upon what the result would be if I asked the view of the House, because—and I have come regretfully to this conclusion—if the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor assures me that the weight of his opinion, that of the Home Secretary, and that of the Attorney-General, is that to accept this Amendment would make
506
the Bill less effective and would impede the process of law which it is designed to carry out, then I do not feel that I could go further in opposing the Government's view. But I regret that they have found themselves driven to that point of view; and I would still appeal to my noble and learned friend, even at this stage, to look again at the position before we have a Third Reading debate.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I say to my noble and learned friend, in thanking him for the extremely generous attitude which he has adopted, that of course I will do what he has asked. I will convey to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary not only his first speech, but what I understand to be the sense of his last remarks—that is, that even if we feel that this Amendment will not work, in the view of my noble and learned friend Lord Reading we ought still to look for an improvement. I will certainly do that. I will convey that to my right honourable friend, and I will, of course, personally see him upon it. I will do that with the greatest of pleasure; and I am most indebted to the noble and learned Marquess for the generous way in which he has acted.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, I have listened to this debate as one who has no special knowledge of the subject but I have listened to it carefully. And I am bound to say that I am wholly unconvinced by what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has said. I do not think he has shown in the slightest degree that this would not work; and I really cannot rest on the ipse dixit of the Attorney General that it will not work. We have other distinguished lawyers in the House here and we have heard their views. It is profoundly unsatisfactory, after listening to the noble Marquess and to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, who made what, to my mind, were most convincing speeches.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I should like very briefly to add my own opinion to what has just been said. I am not speaking now of this particular Amendment. It may be that the word "habitual" is not a suitable word, and that the word in the noble Marquess's Amendment is not a good word in this

507
connection. Nevertheless, I feel most strongly that for Parliament to pass an enactment saying "It shall be an offence for a common prostitute" to do this or that, would be a blot upon our Statute Book. I do not know what the right word is, but I am quite convinced that those are the wrong words. I therefore trust that when the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and his colleagues consider the matter afresh, they will do so from that point of view, in order to get rid of those words.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Do I understand that the noble Marquess wishes leave to withdraw his Amendment?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the position is not that I wish it withdrawn, but that I feel bound to withdraw it. I do so all the more readily, however, in view of the slight encouragement which has come from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack; and I feel that that encouragement may have been stimulated by what has fallen from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. I think the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, if I may say so respectfully, will have realised from listening to this debate that it would bring real relief to the minds and consciences of a great many Members of your Lordships' House if, before the next stage of this Bill, he were, with his colleagues, to devise some form of words which would bring us some comfort in our problems.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.25 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I wonder whether it would be to the convenience of the noble Earl if we dealt with Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 together. That is, of course, only if that course suits his convenience.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I think that is certainly a very convenient course. The Amendments all hang together, and form part of a single proposition. The first Amendment is in subsection (1), after "prostitution" to insert:
"if that street or public place is or is part of an area which common prostitutes are accustomed to frequent so as to cause a nuisance".
508
I would suggest to the House that, in view of what has happened on the last Amendment, and of the unwillingness with which we accepted the considered legal opinion of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and of the Law Officers—and, personally, I entirely agree with my noble friend; I should have felt bound to do the same, because when the noble and learned Viscount pronounces on a matter of law from that place then it really is not a question of policy or politics: he is giving us the considered opinion of all those legal authorities to whom the Government have access—it makes these Amendments that I have put down all the more important. They are designed to give effect to a proposal which was considerably discussed on the last occasion and which I think had a large measure of support, in principle, in the House—and for which, indeed, the noble and learned Viscount himself said he felt sympathy and would consider, as I am sure he has, in a fully sympathetic manner.
On the last occasion the proposal also had the support of the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. He regrets that he is unable to be here to-day, but he has written to me to express his views, and has given me his full authority to communicate them to the House—and I think the House would wish to have them. What his view comes to is this: that if the limited purpose of this Bill—that is, that it deals only with common prostitutes—is to be accepted, then there should be a definition of the nuisance or offence created. The most reverend Primate therefore thinks that the Amendments which I have put on the Paper agree well with the limited purpose of the Bill, and that if that limited purpose is to be accepted, the Amendments will be very helpful.
I think we should all agree that it is desirable to have the Bill in a form which commands the largest measure of support. There is general agreement on the problem and on the need to solve it; there is general agreement that it is the congregation of prostitutes in particular places which causes the scandal and public, nuisance; and there is general agreement that that has got to be stopped. I think we also all agree that

509
it ought not to be necessary for any individual person to prove individual annoyance. In that, we are all in agreement, think, with the Macmillan Committee originally, and the Wolfenden Committee later. But probably most of us would agree, particularly when we come to create new criminal offences and new penalties, that we ought not to go beyond what is necessary. The punishment should fit the crime, but we should not punish where there is no crime.
Now what is the crime here? We have been told repeatedly that this is not a Bill to enforce morality; that it is not a Bill to penalise fornication; that it is not a Bill to suppress prostitution. It is a Bill with one object, and that is to abate a nuisance and to ensure decent behaviour in public places. My Lords, I submit that that is exactly what my Amendments would do. These Amendments would make it a criminal offence to loiter or solicit in any public place in respect of which a local authority declares that prostitutes are a nuisance; and it makes such a declaration by a local authority conclusive evidence. But the Bill as it is drafted makes every prostitute who loiters or solicits in any public place a criminal. Surely, that is going too far.
I would ask the noble and learned Viscount this: do you intend to prosecute every prostitute? I am sure you do not. Well, if not, presumably the Home Secretary or the local police authorities will give administrative directions to the police that they should prosecute only where the numbers or conduct of prostitutes create a scandal or a nuisance. If that is so, why not put it in the Bill? It could be done in as wide language as is administratively necessary. It certainly need not be proved, and I am not asking that it should be, that a particular nuisance is being committed at the time a prostitute is arrested or that she herself added or contributed to the nuisance. I give the local authority full power to declare that any place is a nuisance area and I submit that in this form the Bill would do what is intended, and do that without widening the criminal scope of the Bill unnecessarily.
It has been said that the proposal I am making is open to the criticism that if the concept of nuisance is imported
510
into the Bill, it would be necessary to prove that the woman charged was herself committing a nuisance. But the whole basis of the Bill is that any prostitute anywhere in any public place is a self-evident nuisance. I do not think that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor would challenge that. But he admits that he does not seek to make prostitution by itself a crime. Yet his Bill does, in fact, make every prostitute in a public place a criminal. On what ground? Not because she is a prostitute but because she is committing a nuisance. In short, the noble and learned Viscount lays down by law that every prostitute in a public place is a nuisance, without any proof at all. I propose that she should be held to be a nuisance in places where the local authority declare that prostitutes are a nuisance, and I say that that proposition is more reasonable and fairer and more in line with the purpose of the Bill.
Then it is said that if there are areas where the nuisance is prevented because they are declared nuisance areas, prostitutes will congregate and create a nuisance elsewhere, and that these areas will have to be declared nuisance areas, too; or that, alternatively, a local authority may declare the whole of its area a nuisance area. As a matter of fact, if it did, the women would be no worse off than they are under the Bill. But I believe that both local authorities and prostitutes would be more circumspect. I think that the Home Secretary has already told us that in more than one area the nuisance has already been abated, or largely reduced, in anticipation of the Bill. If that is so, then it is an answer to the last criticism and a justification of my Amendments. It is sometimes wise to proceed by trial and error, and not least when we are creating new criminal offences. Certainly it is always wise to legislate by general consent, if that is possible. I would venture to suggest to your Lordships' House that the proposals I have put upon the Marshalled List satisfy both those desirable objects. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, after ("prostitution") insert ("if that street or public place is or is part of an area which common prostitutes are accustomed to frequent so as to cause a nuisance").—(The Earl of Swinton.)
6.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, for forty years now I have admired the ingenuity and ability of my noble friend Lord Swinton, and I certainly admire immensely the ingenuity which he has shown in this series of Amendments. I would ask your Lordships to believe that there is nothing more distasteful for a Minister of the Crown, even if he occupies my position, than to put again and again the legal difficulties which in my view exist. I know exactly how your Lordships must be feeling about what I have to do, and I would ask your Lordships to bear with me, because the one thing we all desire to do is to put on the Statute Book legislation which will be workable and will deal with the mischief on which we are legislating.
My noble friend's Amendments would have this effect: first, of providing that a local authority could declare any street or public place within its area an area which common prostitutes are accustomed to frequent so as to cause a nuisance; and secondly, of providing that any common prostitute loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution in such an area could be charged with an offence under subsection (1), whether or not it could be proved that she was actually contributing to the nuisance. If the noble Lord will allow me to say so, I was impressed by the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, in the Amendments which he put down on the Committee stage, because they dealt with the gravamen of the difficulty—that is, the fact that, as we all agree, it is a nuisance for ordinary people.
But as the noble Lord, and also my noble friend Lord Swinton, will remember, I was brought up against the problem that, while it is good law that it is enough if you can prove a nuisance and that someone is contributing to that nuisance, there might be some difficulty in proving a nuisance. That is the point my noble friend has sought to meet. I am in this difficulty, however, especially after the opinion which your Lordships have expressed this afternoon. The clause deals with a criminal offence, and if the concept of nuisance is to be imported into the Bill it is extremely difficult, having regard to the ordinary principles of criminal liability, to provide that the offence is committed even if the
512
woman does not contribute to the nuisance. That is the difficulty with which we are faced, and my noble friend knows of it.
If the express qualification of nuisance were imported in this way, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, then the existence of a nuisance, and the fact that the woman was causing or contributing to it, would have to be proved as an ingredient of the offence; and it would not be enough, I think, to prove that by calling a police officer or an officer of the local authority. It would be necessary to show that, at least at the time in question, a number of prostitutes, including the accused, were soliciting for the purpose of prostitution in that area and were thereby causing a nuisance. For the reasons I have stated, it would be extremely difficult to prove that fact.
Therefore we are in this dilemma—and I am afraid that we have not got to the solution now: that either we are going to say that someone is a criminal, on the grounds of nuisance, when she has not contributed to the nuisance, or we are in the old difficulty, which I put to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, of proving the general nuisance. I think there are two difficulties which this collection of Amendments raises—and I do not use the word "collection" in any derogatory sense; I mean the whole scheme which my noble friend has put forward—because the means by which my noble friend seeks to relate the individual prostitute's activities to the existence of a general nuisance is that a street is to be deemed to be the area which common prostitutes are accustomed to frequent so as to cause the nuisance if the local authority declares it to be so. My noble friend has not said (I do not hold this against him, but it is a problem) on what evidence the local authority is to declare the area to be such an area. I think one gets into this further difficulty: that no local authority is likely to say that an area has ceased to be an area where prostitutes congregate, because that would immediately send the prostitutes into that area. I think that must be so. Therefore what would be likely to happen would be that the local authority would extend the area to the whole of the local authority's area, at any rate in Central London. The result would be that it

513
would all become a prohibited area, and we should be back in the same position as we are in under the Bill, except that there would be the other point: that soliciting would be an offence without proof that a particular woman caused or contributed to a nuisance.
The other difficulty I find is this. My noble friend has assumed that one prostitute could not herself become a nuisance. I wonder whether that is so from the practical point of view. I admit at once that the nuisance is more obvious, and more scandalous, where there is a congregation of prostitutes, as there is in many streets in the West End and elsewhere. But nuisance may not depend on there being many prostitutes. In some streets the persistent presence of one prostitute would be offensive and injurious. I think I gave two examples on the last occasion. One was where there was a small, quiet, residential street which one prostitute adopted as her walk, and as the place where she could he picked up and gone home with; and the other was where her pitch was outside a school. In the first of those cases, the residents of a respectable residential area would be scandalised if the prostitute adopted it as her pitch; and in the other case parents of the children at school would be scandalised. I should have thought that the public are entitled to protection against that form of scandal, just as the others. Again I find difficulty in seeing as a practical matter why, if a woman secures a whole street to herself, she is to be safe. It is not the law at the moment that a prostitute operating by herself commits no offence, and I do not think that it should be so. It is an essential element in dealing with general nuisance, and I think that that power has to be retained.
My noble friend knows that I have considered this matter most carefully, because he was good enough to ask me about it. I saw my right honourable friend the Home Secretary about it again to-day, and, as my noble friend knows, he had considered it before. We have really tried to approach this with unclouded minds. I know, as I said at the beginning of my speech, that it sounds as if I am just raising difficulties, but I assure my noble friend that I am not. All the difficulties I have raised to-night, I am afraid rather imperfectly, have been carefully considered. If my right
514
honourable friend could have met my noble friend Lord Swinton he would have been glad to do it, but he is advised that, both from the legal point of view and the point of view of police administration, this proposal would not work. Therefore, while I will gladly have another look at this question if my noble friend thinks I have failed to appreciate any point, I hope he will not press the Amendment to-day.
6.46 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for the consideration he has given to the suggestion that I made on the Committee stage. I felt rather depressed when he told me that he was unable to find a way, and if he could not do so I did not presume to try to find words which could be discussed this afternoon. But I still feel disturbed, as I am sure many of your Lordships are, that this point has not been dealt with, in the same way as we have been disturbed over the point raised in the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. The impression I get is that it is going to be a little more difficult if we introduce these points into the Bill. If it is going to be more difficult to prove that a crime has been committed, perhaps we would rather accept that than accept the provisions of this Bill as they stand. I would plead with the noble and learned Viscount to give this matter equal consideration with that raised by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, and see whether we cannot yet find an agreed solution. It seems to be a great pity that we should have the Church of England Moral Welfare Council and the National Council of Women opposed to the Bill on a matter which is not a Party matter at all and on which we, as sensible people, should be able to reach agreement.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I feel, as I think the whole House must, that we are in a difficult position. I am quite sure that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary have given this matter most careful consideration. I am sure that they would do that, because they said they would, and also because I have no doubt at all that if something like either the Amendment of my noble

515
friend Lord Reading or the Amendments which I have introduced could be incorporated into the Bill it would be a much more popular Bill. I believe the Lord Chancellor entirely agrees with that. On a matter which has no Party politics in it at all, where we are all agreed that there is a problem to be met and one that must be met, it is extraordinarily unsatisfactory if the great majority of us feel uncomfortable as to the way in which that problem has been met.
I must accept, if the Lord Chancellor says it is so, that the Amendments I have put down would be so administratively difficult as really to prejudice the solution of the problem that we all wish to see solved. I do not think the Lord Chancellor is contending that to put into the Bill my provision that the local authority could declare a nuisance area, and that any prostitute soliciting within that area would be guilty of an offence, is an impossible or an impracticable thing to do. He maintains, as I understand it, that it would be contrary to an ideal concept of the criminal law that a nuisance ought to be proved against that particular woman, and that the local authority and/or the police—I think both—would have to prove to the court, not merely by their ipse dixit (though I must say I think they are the best people to judge) that the area is a nuisance area.
I am bound to say that I feel it rather difficult to accept that as a sort of moral principle of the criminal law. If we were merely creating a new offence—that to be a nuisance as a prostitute was a criminal offence—I would accept that. But what are we in fact doing? Under the Bill as it stands, no nuisance has to be proved against any prostitute anywhere, and any prostitute anywhere, once she has been warned twice, is guilty of a criminal offence if she solicits or loiters for prostitution in any place, although we should all admit that she was not annoying anybody or being a nuisance at all. Honestly, between the two concepts—the concept I have put to the House that the local authority can say that certain areas are nuisance areas, and the concept the Lord Chancellor has put into the Bill that every prostitute per se is a nuisance—I must say I think my concept is less repugnant, I hesitate to say to law, when
516
arguing with the Lord Chancellor, but certainly I would have said to humanity and to common sense.
It is really very tiresome. This is not intended to be a moral Bill. We have been told that over and over again. This is a Bill to deal with a nuisance. That is the word which has been used over and over again. It has been said over and over again that that nuisance is the congregation of prostitutes in particular places. The Lord Chancellor now says—and I would not dissent from him—that one prostitute in exceptional circumstances may be a nuisance. All right, then, provide for that. But what you are putting in the Bill is that every prostitute anywhere is a nuisance, and you can convict her without any proof at all. I must say that I think that is a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with the nuisance of congregation or, if you please, the nuisance of a single prostitute in peculiar circumstances in a particular place. Not only to call them all common prostitutes, but to make them all criminals because they are common prostitutes, is really a most extraordinarily unfortunate way of dealing with this problem which we want to solve.
I will not press this Amendment to a Division now if the House will allow me to withdraw it. I am quite sure that what both my noble friend Lord Reading and I have said to the House to-day has commanded a great amount of sympathy in the House, and I think the Lord Chancellor and the noble Earl the Leader of the House will realise that. I hope that they will have a good look at this matter and see whether they cannot get this Bill, even at this late stage, into a form which will make the punishment fit the crime, will solve the problem and, at the same time, will satisfy the sentiment and, indeed, the conscience of this House and, I believe, of the whole country.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.56 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE moved to add to the Clause:
"Provided that where the only charge proved against a person is that he is living on the immoral earnings of one woman this section shall not apply."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that during the Committee stage of this Bill I raised a

517
question dealing with the substance of the Amendment I am proposing to-day. The noble and learned Viscount was good enough to express considerable sympathy with the object of my Amendment, but I think he used the words—I should not like to misquote him—that it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. By that I think he meant that while it was perfectly right to punish very severely persons who were guilty of major offences, the man who lived on the immoral earnings of one woman and was not otherwise objectionable ought not to have that larger penalty hanging over his head. He went so far as to say that he thought in general that he would not come into the larger penalty, but that he would be brought up only on a charge in a magistrates' court for the maximum penalty, which would be very much less.
The Lord Chancellor said that he would think over a form of words. In effect, he invited me to think over a form of words which would enable us to distinguish between these two types of people. I suggested—and I think my noble friend behind me suggested at the same time—something which applied merely to living on the earnings of one woman. The Lord Chancellor promised to consider that. But he said that a man might be living on the earnings of one woman and yet be a brute and a bully. He might be guilty of very serious offences in that direction. It is with the intention of meeting that point which the Lord Chancellor made that I put down my Amendment in the precise form in which it stands on the Order Paper: that where the only offence that is proved against a person is that of living on the earnings of one woman, he should not be liable to the larger penalties which it is proposed in Clause 4 to introduce. Therefore I do not think I need elaborate the matter any further. But I should like to put forward that view, and I hope the Lord Chancellor will be able, if he cannot accept my Amendment or the Amendment of my noble friend which follows, to do something himself to make this distinction. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 14, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Pethick-Lawrence.)
6.59 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I think it might be for the convenience of the House and save time if I spoke to my noble friend's Amendment and dealt at the same time with the Amendment in my name. At this late hour I will not elaborate on what I said on the Committee stage. I hope that some of your Lordships will have read the documents which I then mentioned—the book The Women of the Streets and the extremely interesting article in the magazine Encounter. If they have, cannot help thinking that many of them may have come, as I did, to a rather unexpected conclusion. I had never previously considered the position of the ponce or the pimp in society, and it was definitely, I may say, a surprise to find that research workers among prostitutes had found that the ponce was in many cases—indeed I gather in most cases—the most stable element in the unstable life of the prostitute. Therefore I have put down this Amendment, which, if I may say so, I prefer to that of my noble friend.
On the Committee stage the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor treated this point with the seriousness which I think it deserves, and also with the charming consideration which he always shows for propositions put up to him in your Lordships" House. I suggested then that perhaps it might be possible to differentiate between the man who lived on the immoral earnings of one woman only and those who live on the immoral earnings of more than one. For in the first case, as I said at that time, it might well be that the man was practically the woman's husband; whereas when he was exploiting more than one woman it would be an obvious conclusion that he was encouraging her way of life and, indeed, possibly forcing her to it for his own profit.
For that reason, because it seemed to me impossible to be sure that even a man living on one woman's immoral earnings was not responsible for her way of life and was not for his own profit driving her to that way of life, I have put down my Amendment to-day, with the provision that where a man is accused of living on the immoral earnings of only one woman
"it shall be necessary, for the prosecution to succeed, to show that he has constrained her to an immoral way of life."

519
It seemed to me that in my noble friend's Amendment that possibility was lost sight of, and that anyone living on the immoral earnings of one woman only would slip through the net in which we should certainly all desire to catch the man who was exploiting a woman in this particular way.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: He would not slip through the net; he would not be liable to the more severe penalties proposed in Clause 4. He does not slip through the net. He is still liable to come under the old section, but would not be liable to the more severe penalties.
LORD FARINGDON: I thank my noble friend very much for that explanation. I had thought that all the pains and penalties would cease to be operative in the case of such a person. I accept the noble Lord's assurance that he would come under the law as it now exists. I read it otherwise. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, will, I know, between the Committee stage and Report stage have considered the matter with the seriousness that he always gives to all our proposals and without, I know, any of the prejudice which is bound to attach to this particular form of human activity, and I therefore look forward with interest and with some hope to what he has to say in reply to this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I first of all explain the difficulty of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, which really drew the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. The Amendment says:
"Provided always that where the accused is charged with living on the immoral earnings of one woman only it shall be necessary, for the prosecution to succeed"—
I repeat—"for the prosecution to succeed"—
"to show that he has constrained her to an immoral way of life"
I do not know whether the noble Lord intended to do it, but what he has done is to give the man a complete defence unless it can be shown that he forced the lady to be a prostitute.
LORD FARINGDON: That was quite intentional.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, is really considering the less radical point, that we should make such a man subject only to the old lesser penalties and not subject him to the new larger penalties.
I have found a great difficulty with regard to this matter. I should like to say what it is. Perhaps if I may give a case which I think illustrates the difficulty of attempting to draw a distinction of this kind—that is, the recent case of Atillio Messina. Whatever may have been thought about Messina, he was in fact convicted of living on the earnings of one prostitute who was named—there is no point in repeating the name here. He had been living on her earnings for more than ten years during which time she claimed to have brought him over £40,000. If the clause were amended as the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, suggests, and if that were the only offence on which Messina had been convicted, he would be liable to the lesser penalty. But that is very different from the case the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, had in mind. He had in mind the case—which attracted my sympathy, and still does—where you find a man, often a poor specimen, and unhealthy, who does very little, if any, work, and his wife goes out as a prostitute and thereby keeps him. Such a case, of course, is poles apart from a case like Messina's case, where the one woman in question has been providing him with an income of £4,000 a year for ten years.
That is the first difficulty. The second difficulty, of course, is the one which the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, with, if he will allow me to say so, all the candour one would expect, had in mind. The noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, is absolutely desirous, as I understand his point of view, of making the bully suffer. I do not think he is directing his mind to the exact penalty, but what Lord Faring-don had in mind was that where you have a bully who has constrained and forced a woman to act as a prostitute, then a stiff penalty is a good social provision for him. That is the other case that is still not subject to the differentiation of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. You might still have a man living on the immoral earnings of only one woman,

521
but it might be a case like the Messina case, where he is working the woman to the extent of very large sums. Or you might have the other case which the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, had in mind, that of the bully (I use the phrase in its technical sense) who drives and constrains his wife to prostitution. For either of these offences I confess that I should be very glad to see that the man was in risk of seven years' penal servitude.
The other point at the other end of the scale which I do not think I can have made sufficiently clear is that although the maximum penalty is increased to seven years, that is the maxim um penalty. The courts are not required to impose it; they can impose one which fits the circumstances of the case. But the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has this fear—and penologically it is one that I fully appreciate. He says that if you put forward this high penalty then you are automatically making the court lift the sights of its gun. I think the answer to that is that in the type of case which he has in mind—namely, of the poor specimen whose wife or mistress goes out to prostitution to keep him, and there is only one woman—it is almost inevitable that the police would bring the charge under the provision for a summary offence; that is, they would bring the charge in the magistrates' court. In that case, the maximum penalty which could be imposed on him would be six months.
I have considered this matter, and so has the Home Secretary and our advisers at the Home Office, and we really do not think that the case which has rightly, if I may say so, touched the heart of Lord Pethick-Lawrence—that is, the case of the poor specimen whose wife really wants to help him in this immoral way—presents any practical danger to him of ever being brought into a court where the seven years' penalty will apply. But the difficulty of the Messina or the bully is too much for us to accept the Amendment. I am sorry. I will have another look at it, because I always like to meet the noble Lord, Lord Puthick-Lawrence. I am afraid that I cannot, for these reasons, meet him to-day.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I do not propose to press this Amendment to a Division. I do not think that the Lord Chancellor has quite met my point of view. I was not thinking solely of the man who was a weakling and whose wife went out to keep him; I was thinking of the man who, in the words of my noble friend, was a husband who stayed at home and she earned money in this way. But the point was that if a man commits this offence it is quite right, within the law, that if he is guilty he should pay the penalty. It is probable that he will, as the noble and learned Viscount says, be brought up on a summary charge and convicted, and will not receive a severe penalty. But I would regard him as at risk in regard to the imposition of a much larger penalty under the clause as it now stands, and the penalty might rise higher if we get many cases such as the Messina case, which the noble and learned Viscount quoted. I cannot help thinking that, if necessary, something more might have to be found against the man. I did not specify merely that it was only one woman, but that he had committed no other offence; and I thought possibly that in such a case some other offence might have to be found to have been committed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Might I say that I have differentiated in regard to the Messina case because the police managed to prove that in that case he constrained the girl to prostitution. But I took it as an example of the case where you could not prove the second fact. I do not want to mislead the noble Lord for a moment. He is quite right.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think the Lord Chancellor has got my point. I still think that it would be better to have some differentiation. I have tried my hand, and apparently the noble and learned Viscount has tried his, and we have not succeeded. I have not very much hope that if he tries again he will find a solution, but if he does, I shall be much obliged. In any case, I do not press the Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON had given Notice of his intention to move to insert the following proviso at the end of Clause 4:
"Provided always that where the accused is charged with living on the immoral earnings of one woman only it shall be necessary, for the prosecution to succeed, to show that he has constrained her to an immoral way of life."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not intend to press my Amendment, but, if I may say so with the greatest respect, I think that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor was a little less than fair in quoting the Messina case. If my Amendment had been the law of the land at that time, I suggest that the police could have shown—as they in fact did—that he had constrained the woman. Moreover, I do not think that in that case the police could have been put too much difficulty to find other women who had equally been constrained by Messina. Therefore, I think it was perhaps a little less than fair to give the example of that case. I am sorry that he cannot see his way to accepting this Amendment. It is a difficult subject and one which I think might well have been left out of the Bill, which is designed to deal with a nuisance of an entirely different kind. In any case, I do not intend to press my Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord does not move the Amendment?
LORD FARINGDON: No.

COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE BILL [H.L.]
7.17 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a Consolidation Bill and I beg formally to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

MENTAL HEALTH BILL
7.18 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it has not been found convenient to continue sitting this evening to discuss the Mental Health Bill, but it has been arranged through the usual channels that we should continue the Committee stage to-morrow afternoon after the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in connection with National Parks.
Order of the Day discharged.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past seven o'clock.